Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Darlington Corporation (Transport, & c.) Act, 1925, relating to Darlington Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (REDCAR) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Redcar," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 97.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (SWANAGE) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Swanage," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

PORTSMOUTH CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport under the Portsmouth Corporation Act, 1930, relating to Portsmouth Corporation trolley vehicles," presented by Mr. Barnes; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 99.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Requisitioned Accommodation, Shotley

Mr. J. H. Hare: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he intends to release accommodation requisitioned at Broadwater Gardens, Shotley, Suffolk, which is required for civilian housing purposes.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): As I recently informed the hon. Member in correspondence, I regret that I can hold out no hope of de-requisitioning this property.

Mr. Hare: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are 41 families in this particular village on the council's waiting list for new housing accommodation and the retention of this building is denying accommodation to 28 families?

Mr. Edgar Granville: For what purpose is this accommodation being held? Is there any alternative accommodation in the same area by the use of which this accommodation could be released?

Mr. Edwards: I am not aware of the number of families on the waiting list for housing accommodation. These premises are occupied by W.R.N.S., for whom we cannot find alternative accommodation in the district.

Mr. Hare: Can the hon. Gentleman give no hope at all that this housing accommodation, which is civilian and has been requisitioned by the Admiralty, will not be released in the next year, or in two years? Has he no plans at all?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot give any hope of early release, even in two years. The fact is that it has never been used for housing by civilian people, and it is essential for the accommodation of the W.R.N.S. Until we can find better accommodation, or similar accommodation, for the W.R.N.S., we cannot de-requisition it.

Mr. Hare: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall try to raise the matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Palestine Patrol

Commander Noble: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many ships carrying illegal immigrants to Palestine have been intercepted by the Royal Navy since VE-day.

Mr. W. Edwards: Forty-eight, Sir.

Commander Noble: Can the hon. Gentleman give any indication of the long periods at sea which this must have necessitated and the great strain which these boarding operations must have imposed on all concerned?

Mr. Edwards: I am very happy to be given the opportunity of informing the House of something of what has been done by the Navy in these difficult times. I can say that the average monthly mileage of ships in the Palestine Patrol has been not less than 5,100 miles per ship. Several ships have served under very arduous conditions there, and I mention two, H.M.S. "Widemouth Bay," which served at sea for no less than 41 days out of 43 in 1947 and the destroyer, "Virago," which served at sea 52 days out of 56. I am pleased to be able to draw the attention of the House to what the Navy has been doing in connection with this matter.

Mr. Eden: In view of the characteristic manner in which the Royal Navy have discharged what, I am sure the whole House will agree, was a very onerous task, will the hon. Gentleman convey the thanks of the whole House to them for what they have done?

Mr. Edwards: I will do that, certainly.

Officers (Widows' Pensions)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, since provision was made under the Appendix to the Navy List, page 93, paragraph 5 (f), for widows pensions in certain circumstances granted prior to 17th December, 1929, to cover the period of the first world war, when he will consider re-introducing these measures for retired officers re-employed in the second world war.

Mr. W. Edwards: The future arrangements which will govern the award of pensions to widows of officers of the three Services are still under review, but this review has now reached an advanced stage and I hope that it will be possible to make a statement before very long.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that I raised this point over two years ago, and an assurance was given by His Majesty's Government, but in the meantime a constituent of mine has died, leaving a widow without a pension? Will the legislation proposed be retrospective?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot deal with the question of retrospective legislation, as this is a matter which affects the three Services and until there is common agreement between the three Services and the Treasury, I cannot make an announcement in that direction.

Scientific Posts

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has now decided upon the scientific complement for the R.N.P.F.; what number of higher posts there will be; and from what date the staff will receive the new salary scales.

Mr. W. Edwards: An interim post-war complement of chemists at the Royal Naval Propellant Factory, Caerwent, has been approved and the number of higher posts will be three. Scales of salary for these posts are under consideration.

Colonel Wheatley: May I ask the Minister when there will be any likelihood of putting an end to this very long drawn out affair which is under consideration? When will the end of this consideration come?

Mr. Edwards: I am very happy to be able to say that we have made what might be termed rapid progress during the last month or so, and I am hopeful that the end will come along very soon, but I cannot give a definite date.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. NEWS BULLETINS (ADVERTISING)

Mr. Irving: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that the B.B.C. has on several occasions given publicity in its news bulletins to a new dairy erected by the Milk Marketing Board for producer retailers at Langley Bridge, County Durham; and if he will take steps to prevent the Corporation using news bulletins to advertise business concerns which are of a competitive nature in violation of the terms of its licence.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): The B.B.C. state that on 14th


April a single report in a Northern News Bulletin was broadcast about this new creamery, which does not compete with any private business and represents an important advance in dairy organisation. My right hon. Friend does not regard this as commercial advertising in the ordinary sense and sees no reason to intervene.

Mr. Irving: Is the Minister aware that there are competitors of the Milk Marketing Board in this area, and that these competitors are complaining very bitterly about it?

Mr. Hobson: I may say that reference to this has been made only once. As far as this new creamery is concerned, notice has already been given that the Minister of Agriculture will open it.

Mr. Vane: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House who these competitors are? Are they Co-operatives?

Mr. Hobson: If I gave the names, I should be accused of advertising.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Dismissals, Glasgow

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a number of temporary sorting clerks in Glasgow, aged over 55 years are being, or have recently been, dismissed; that they are being replaced by younger men; and what steps have been- taken to ascertain whether other work is available for the dismissed men.

Mr. Hobson: Yes, Sir. Sixteen temporary men at Glasgow between 64 and 69 years of age, employed on indoor postal duties proper to be filled by the promotion of permanent postmen, are now being displaced by qualified postmen in accordance with an agreement reached in 1946 with the Union of Post Office Workers. I regret that no further suitable employment is available for the men in the Post Office, but the local Employment Exchange has been advised of the position.

Mr. Reid: How does it come about that the Government lend themselves to an agreement under which men who are perfectly fit but cannot take on other productive jobs are to be replaced by men

who, otherwise, would be available for production?

Mr. Hobson: The position is that, even if they were regular postmen, which they are not, they would retire at 60, though they are, in certain cases, kept on until 62. In regard to the position in Glasgow, we have Regular ex-Service men waiting for jobs in the postal service.

Commander Galbraith: Can the Minister say how long men have been employed temporarily?

Mr. Hobson: My information is, seven years.

Mr. Reid: I am told that a number of them run from eight to 20 years, and that they are veterans of the First World War. Is that so?

Mr. Hobson: I have no knowledge of that.

Air Mail, Pakistan

Commander Noble: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the delays in air mail from Pakistan; and what is the average time taken.

Mr. Hobson: Air mails from Pakistan reach this country on average within three days of despatch from Karachi, and letters are delivered as soon as possible thereafter. If the hon. and gallant Member will let me have particulars of any cases where air mail letters appear to have been delayed in transmission, I will gladly have inquiry made.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Aircraft (Purchase)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what negotiations have taken place with the Irish air line companies regarding the purchase of Constellation aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): I am not in a position to make any statement beyond saying that B.O.A.C. have been authorised to submit a tender for the purchase of the five Constellation aircraft belonging to the Eire Company Aerlinte.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that a price no higher, and preferably less, than the latest will be paid for these aircraft? Can he also say, if they are purchased, on what routes they will be operated?

Mr. Lindgren: I would prefer that we did not proceed further with this Question today. The negotiations are delicate. In so far as the route is concerned, if they are purchased, they will be used in parallel with the Quantas service to Australia.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if British Overseas Airways Corporation still intend to purchase six Boeing Stratocruiser aircraft; when these aircraft are to be delivered; and how much has been paid on account.

Mr. Lindgren: The Government approved the purchase of these aircraft in 1946, and the contract subsequently placed by B.O.A.C. is still in force. The remainder of the Question relates to matters of management reserved to the Corporation.

Air-Commodore Harvey: While I cannot accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says, does he realise that it is common knowledge that the trial flights of the Boeing Stratocruiser have been most disappointing, and that one of the Swedish air lines is endeavouring to cancel its order? As there is a large sum of the taxpayers' money involved— about £2,500,000—will be explain what is the intention?

Mr. Lindgren: The intention is, so far as I am aware, for the continuation of the contract. I am not aware of the information which the hon. and gallant Member has given to the House.

Mr. Granville: When is it expected that these Boeing aircraft will be delivered, and is it not increasing the tremendous overhead costs of B.O.A.C. to carry maintenance for other aircraft?

Mr. Lindgren: The first delivery date was given as May, 1948. The present indication is that it will be in the early part of January, 1949.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister consider advising the B.O.A.C. to purchase Scottish-built aircraft, and cannot arrange-

ments be made for the Government to set up a factory for building them in Scotland?

Mr. George Ward: Is the Minister aware that the Americans are not very keen to sell these aircraft to us? Will he seriously consider transfering this order from Boeings to Lockheeds for more Constellations?

Mr. Lindgren: Much depends upon the terms of the original contracts entered into.

Air-Commodore Harvey: As this matter concerns a very large sum of money, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise it on the Motion for the Adjournment at a very early opportunity.

Feeder Service, Edinburgh—Aberdeen

Lady Grant: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will direct B.E.A.C. to run a feeder air service with small aircraft daily between Edinburgh and Aberdeen to connect with the existing daily return service from Edinburgh to London.

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir.

Lady Grant: Why not?

Mr. Lindgren: Because the service which has been withdrawn was not patronised and was uneconomic.

Lady Grant: Although we are all aware that the service did not pay for Dakotas, nevertheless, the suggestion is that small aircraft should be used as feeder aircraft between Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Cannot the Minister, therefore, reconsider the matter very carefully?

Mr. Lindgren: The only alternative is the D.H. 89, and I am informed that it would be equally uneconomic.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my hon. Friend aware that business people in the North of Scotland require a direct service between Aberdeen and London, and will he take steps to restore it?

Mr. Lindgren: They had the opportunity of showing their enthusiasm for a period of six months, and did not take it.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask whether there was a service before nationalisation, and, in any case, will the Minister allow a private company to operate this much-needed service?

Mr. Lindgren: There was no prewar service. The question of operation by a private company is a matter for arrangement and negotiation with the Corporation under the appropriate Section of the Civil Aviation Act.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does it come to this —that, as B.E.A.C. are unable to ran their services economically, and those who can are not allowed to do so, the result is that Scotland has to suffer?

Mr. Lindgren: It does not mean that at all. It does mean that where there is an alternative means of surface transport which is an effective competitor with air transport, the opportunities of profit are limited.

Mr. Speaker: The original Question was whether there was to be a feeder air service, but we are now getting very wide of the mark.

Charter Service, London—Bahrein

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when B.O.A.C. proposes to start charter services between London and the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Lindgren: I am informed by the British Overseas Airways Corporation that the first of a series of weekly flights on charter to them left the United Kingdom for Bahrein on 9th May.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What was wrong, if anything, which is very doubtful, with the existing charter service run by a private company to Abadan?

Mr. Lindgren: This is a variation of an agreement which has been in operation between Skyways and B.O.A.C. since 1946, and is a rationalisation of services, including this private charter sponsored by the B.O.A.C. and the regular scheduled services.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Does it come to this —that, as soon as a private company makes a success and makes a profit, the Government come in and take the trade?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. It does mean that, where there is an opportunity for rationalisation for the public good, the Corporation accepts the opportunity.

Lady Grant: If it is possible to run a charter service between this country and

Persia, why cannot it be done between London and Aberdeen?

Mr. Lindgren: The former route is a little more difficult.

Mr. Assheton: Is another reason that we have not got a railway interest between here and Persia which we have to protect?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Prisoner of War (Re-classification)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Reinhard Bluhm, born on 31st July, 1920, near Danzig and taken prisoner by the American Army after being de-Nazified at Darmstadt, given the benefit of the Youth Amnesty and placed in Category 5, has now been re-classified in Category 3 without a trial; whether he is aware that this decision was promulgated over the signature of a British officer at 117 Mil. Gov., Hildesheim, with orders that he was not to be employed by any British unit; and that the British unit with whom this man was working was satisfied with his work and is anxious to re-employ him.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ernest Bevin): Bluhm was an officer in the S.S. for seven years and a non-commissioned officer in the Hitler Youth for four years. When the United States authorities became aware of his long Nazi record they quashed his exoneration under the Youth Amnesty. The German Denazification Panel in the British zone, which considered his case, decided, after consulting the denazification authorities in the United States zone, to place him in Category 3 on the grounds that he was politically exceptionally dangerous. Bluhm was given the opportunity of appearing before the Panel but did not do so. The Panel's decision was confirmed by the British authorities. It is clearly undesirable on security grounds that Germans whose political record is unsatisfactory should be retained in Military Government employment.

Mr. Stokes: Can my right hon. Friend give the date on which the Americans quashed the release under the Youth Amnesty?

Mr. Bevin: I am sorry; I have no information on that.

Mr. Stokes: If I put a Question down, will the right hon. Gentleman give that information?

Mr. Bevin: Certainly.

Banned Newspapers

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the text of the offending passages from the "Volksstimme" in Cologne, and the "Westdeutsches Volksecho" in Dortmund, which caused the British authorities again to ban these two German papers.

Mr. Bevin: As the answer is long and contains quotations, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that an arrangement has been reached that all opinions opposing capitalist restabilisation in the British and American zones have to be suppressed at all costs?

Mr. Bevin: I do not agree at all. I just ask for decency, that is all.

Following is the answer:

Of the two newspapers referred to in the hon. Member's Question, "Volksstimme" has not previously been banned by the Military Government although it has been reprimanded three times and on the last occasion, three months ago, warned that this would be the last warning. "Westdeutsches Volksecho" has been suspended twice in the last ten months, once for a period of one month in June, 1947, and once for six weeks in February, 1948, for a continued campaign of malicious, biased and inaccurate statements directed against the British and United States Governments. The specific passages on which action was taken in the case of "Westdeutsches Volksecho" are comments on Italian elections published on 23rd April, 1948, and a syndicated article published on 27th April, 1948. The first comment read:
The big capitalists, large landowners, the Vatican and the gentlemen of Wall Street have succeeded by their hunger policy, mental terrors and intimidation, detachments of police, rumours of civil war, and American warships and bombers, in leading the lower classes of Italy and also a large number of women into the Christian Democrat Camp.

The second comment read:
Ever since the collapse of the Hitler regime the German people have longed for a

just peace. Instead of this it is forced to accept a Marshall Plan, which, operating behind the mask of philanthropy, threatens to transform Western Germany info a colony of American monopoly capitalism and destroy German unity. The ruins of the second world war have not yet been cleared away, the tears of the widows and orphans have not yet been dried, and once again new warmongers are attempting to make the West German industrial area the cause of Imperialist quarrels and the battleground of a third world war.

This comment also appeared in "Volksstimme" on 26th April. In view of its previous record, the licence of "Westdeutsches Volksecho" has been withdrawn, for repeated violation of paragraph 5 of the policy instructions accompanying its licence, which lays down that nothing shall be published which intentionally tends to provoke disunity among the Allied Powers and their Forces of Occupation. Other legislation which has been infringed are Control Council Directive No. 40 and Military Government Ordinance No. 1. "Volksstimme" has been suspended for one month under the same legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARRESTED BRITISH SUBJECT, BELGIUM (TRIAL)

Mr. Solley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that it is nearly twelve months since Mr. Stevens, of Grays, Essex, has been imprisoned in Belgium awaiting his trial on a charge of murder, he will take steps to impress upon the Belgian authorities the desirability of securing the trial of this British subject as soon as possible.

Mr. Bevin: I have received a full report on this matter from His Majesty's Consul-General at Antwerp who has been watching this case closely from the beginning. Mr. Stevens has been in detention since early last July. It has been necessary for the Belgian judicial authorities to arrange for documents to be translated into Flemish from English, and to give time to the defence to collect evidence from England. I am satisfied that the case is taking a normal course, and that Mr. Stevens is receiving the same treatment as would be accorded to a Belgian subject in similar circumstances. It was hoped that the trial would take place in March, but the court concerned only holds four sessions a year and it may not be possible for the case to be heard until September.

Mr. Solley: Whilst thanking my right hon. Friend for his long and detailed reply, may I ask him if he could make representations to the Belgian authorities that a delay of what will be over one year and a quarter is much too long in the circumstances, and secondly, would he personally satisfy himself that this delay is not due in part to the lack of competent legal assistance for this British subject; and, if so, could he take steps to see that Mr. Stevens gets every possible help from our own representatives in Belgium?

Mr. Bevin: I have given every possible help I can, but I will take note of the supplementary question and will look into it very closely.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN RHODESIA

Civil Service Salaries

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the inquiry into the salaries of Northern Rhodesian civil servants, which inquiry was made about a year ago.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): This report has been presented and will be published shortly, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement about it.

Mr. Reid: Can the hon. Gentleman say if this report is to await the consideration of the reports on other Colonies now being prepared?

Mr. Rees-Williams: No, Sir. It is actually in the printers' hands and we hope it will be printed within the next couple of weeks. It will then go by sea mail to the Colony concerned, and we hope it will be simultaneously published here and in the Colony.

Taxation

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that Europeans in Nyasaland pay a poll tax of £4 per annum; and if he will consider the introduction of a similar tax in Northern Rhodesia which would remedy the present position in which all Africans are subject to direct taxation but Europeans with incomes below a certain figure pay no direct taxation.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Legislation imposing an annual tax of £1 on all residents of Northern Rhodesia other than Africans was repealed in 1945. A Committee, including one African member, which reviewed taxation in 1946 did not recommend the reintroduction of this tax, and the Governor is of the opinion that there is no adequate reason for changing the existing system of taxation in this respect.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the hon. Gentleman see that the same principle, as far as practicable, is applicable to white settlers in Nyasaland and Rhodesia as is applicable to the Africans?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Taxation is a matter for the Government of Nyasaland and for the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia, and it is not desirable that we should interfere in taxation matters.

Mr. Scollan: Have we not an obligation in this country to see that there is no differentiation against natives in their own lands?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We can always make suggestions, but our record in the past of interfering in taxation matters has not always been a happy one.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYA AND SINGAPORE

Trade Union Mission

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the report of the Trade Union Mission to Malaya will be published.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The report is still in course of preparation. I am not, therefore, able as yet to give the date of publication.

Government Service (Asiatics)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many locally recruited officers are serving in administrative position in Government service in the Federation of Malaya and in Singapore; and what provision exists for the holding of entrance examinations locally for the recruitment of Asiatics of the same standard as Europeans.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am in communication with the Malayan Governments on this matter, and will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I have the necessary information.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS (JEWISH REFUGEES)

Dr. Barnett Stross: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the illegal Jewish immigrants, at present detained in Cyprus, will be at liberty to leave the island after 15th May.

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the transfer of Jewish refugees, interned in Cyprus, to Palestine.

Mr. Rees-Williams: It has already been made clear that these persons must be removed from British territory before the final withdrawal from Palestine. The precise arrangements to be made after termination of the Mandate are now under discussion and I am not at present in a position to make a further statement.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no cost will be borne by the British taxpayer in transferring these people back to Palestine?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The responsibility is on the people who wish to take them away. I do not anticipate that there will be any cost to the British taxpayer.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the hon. Gentleman also give an assurance that no British ships will be involved in this process.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I cannot give that assurance at the moment.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether, when he deals with these illegal immigrants from Cyprus, he will also consider those detained in Kenya and in other parts of Africa?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is a matter which is under consideration at the moment.

Mr. Vane: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that no arms are concealed in these camps, and will he be sure that when

these people do leave for Palestine they will be searched for arms?

Mr. Hare: Would the hon. Gentleman say what is the intention with regard to those people who do not wish to leave Cyprus? What are the Government going to do about them?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I am not aware that there are any. So far as I am aware they all wish to leave, and that question may not, therefore, arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRINIDAD (INSTITUTES)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made in the erection of the Central Training Institute for Teachers and a farm institute at Centeno, Trinidad.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) on 14th April.

Mr. Baldwin: Is it a fact that the Standing Finance Committee of the Legislature refused to vote the necessary funds in order to erect these buildings, and is it not true to say that a training and a farm institute are very necessary, not only for Trinidad but for the Windward and Leeward Islands?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think it is desirable that the matter should be proceeded with. I was rather surprised that it has not been proceeded with, but the Legislative Council has decided that the cost involved is too great for the Colony's finances to bear; that is the reason for the decision.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is going to be done with the unfinished buildings, on which a large sum of money has been spent, and is it a fact that a principal has been appointed to the farm institute?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question. We are looking into that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS (FARMING PLANS)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that details of plans made by the Government of British Honduras for the


fostering of sound farming practice have not yet been released locally; that requests by farmers to the Department of Agriculture have elicited no information; and whether he will take steps to ensure local publication of the plans at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Rees-Williams: Detailed plans for agriculture in British Honduras await the report of the British Guiana-British Honduras Settlement Commission, which I expect to receive shortly. An outline policy has, however, been prepared by the Director of Agriculture; this will be considered by a Committee of the Legislative Council which will commence sitting next month. Meanwhile attention is being concentrated on increased production of foodstuffs and improving local marketing facilities.

Mr. Skinnard: Is the Minister aware, in connection with this proposed increase in the production of foodstuffs about which an answer was given to me in the House late last year, the British Honduras Chamber of Commerce has categorically stated that no details of these plans at all have been published in the Colonies?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is so. I do not think any detailed policy has been published, but that must await the report of the Commission to which I have referred. The outline policy has been framed by the Director of Agriculture, and that is being considered. Until we get the report no detailed policy can be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENYA (TRAINING SCHEMES)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities at present exist in Nairobi for technical training for Africans; and whether the Government of Kenya will consider approaching leading business firms with a view to the institution of training schemes for Africans in technical work.

Mr. Rees-Williams: There is a Government Training Centre for ex-Service men at which carpentry, masonry, tailoring, shoemaking and other crafts are taught. From 1st January next the centre will be open to African civilians. In addition, evening continuation classes, which Afri-

cans are encouraged to join, exist in Nairobi for several subjects including plumbing, drainlaying, book-keeping and accountancy. Classes in several other' subjects have had to be closed for lack of present support from Africans. A special Committee on which business firms are represented is at present considering the expansion of evening classes into a technical institute and the institution of industrial apprenticeship.

Mr. Skinnard: Are business firms prepared to co-operate in providing technical assistance to the classes, trained staff and so on?

Mr. Rees-Williams: So far as limited resources allow, I believe they are.

Mr. Wilson Harris: During his recent visit did the Minister find that Africans would settle down satisfactorily to regular training schemes?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I had an opportunity to visit the Government training centre referred to here, and I found that the Africans settled down particularly well. They were all ex-Service men, of course, and they ran their own discipline, and the instructors had nothing but praise for the way in which they had settled down to their studies. I believe we have great hopes here.

Mr. John Hynd: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether it is the Government's intention to release the central technical training institute taken over by the military authorities at the beginning of the war, which could take 600 to 700 Africans a year?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We are looking into that matter.

Brigadier Rayner: Is it true that the Indian technicians now in the Colony are to be repatriated at the end of their contracts?

Mr. Rees-Williams: That is another question.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: Are training facilities to be made available to civilians free of charge or are there to be some conditions?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We are in the process of framing the scheme, and we will take the matter up.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST AFRICAN COLONIES

Groundnuts

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in respect of the improvement of quality and the sale of West African groundnuts; and to what extent plans for the expansion of groundnut cultivation have been implemented.

Mr. Rees-Williams: An expert visited West Africa last year to study ways of improving the quality of groundnuts by preventing deterioration in store. He has now returned to Nigeria with a team of chemists to carry out large scale experiments. The sale of groundnuts will be put into the hands of local marketing boards as soon as possible. A representative of the West African Produce Control Board is now in West Africa advising on the technical problems involved. Apart from a possible further expansion of peasant production, I am now considering, in consultation with the local Governments, the recommendations of the West African Oilseeds Mission which will be published before the end of the month. These envisage increased groundnut cultivation on a mechanised basis. Soil and water surveys of suitable areas have already been made.

Mr. Sorensen: Is there any store of groundnuts undisposed of in West Africa? If so, for how long has it been there? Can it be used in some way in the near future?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Very large stores have been accumulated at Kano. According to my last information, we have 280,000 tons awaiting transit; and there are about 50,000 tons in Gambia, which will be moved in a short time. The reason for our inability to move a large quantity of groundnuts as quickly as we should like from Kano is the shortage of rolling stock on the railway. We are dealing with that situation. I think 20 engines are now on the way.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that rolling stock is not diverted from West Africa to East Africa, because it is desperately needed for the existing requirements?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I can give that assurance.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: Will it not have a very depressing effect upon producers if they see these continuing accumulations without any hope of their disposal? Is it not a waste of time to talk about expansion of cultivation in such circumstances?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Accumulation only arises during the season, and when the season is over the groundnuts rapidly decrease in store. We are tackling this matter with great energy, and are getting the engines and wagons out there. The difficulty has arisen because of the war.

Mr. Bossom: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is a full complement of the chemists needed?

Mr. Rees-Williams: We have sent a team out. I have not heard any more.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that as much attention is given to the extension of this industry in West Africa as is being given to it in East Africa?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Yes, certainly.

Education

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate number of children in the West African Colonies receiving education, respectively, in mission and non-mission primary and secondary schools; and how many teachers there are with and without adequate qualifications.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have asked for the information from West Africa, and will send it to my hon. Friend as soon as it is received.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (HOLY PLACES)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state the precise nature of the arrangements made for the safeguarding of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and Bethlehem on the termination of the mandate.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The safety of the Holy Places in Jerusalem depends on the maintenance of order in the City. Negotiations are now being conducted by the High Commissioner with the Arabs and Jews for a truce to cover the Jerusalem town planning area. Bethlehem lies outside this area, but it seems likely that if


peace is maintained in the City of Jerusalem no threat will develop to the Holy Places in Bethlehem. As the terms of the truce are still the subject of negotiation, I cannot state their precise nature at the moment.

Sir P. Harmon: Has any officer yet been appointed? Is there one on the eve of being appointed to take charge of this difficult office of safeguarding the Holy Places in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem? Have the Government succeeded in getting an appropriate officer to take charge?

Mr. Rees-Williams: I have no more information on that. Not so far as I am aware.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: If the truce negotiations break down, what steps will be taken to safeguard the Holy places?

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA (LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he proposes to take as a result of the Report of the Joint Committee of the Legislative Council and House of Assembly in Bermuda, which recommends a limited extension of the franchise on the basis of ownership of real estate, the maintenance of local trade union legislation in its present form, and the maintenance of separate schools for white and coloured children; and, in particular, if he will take steps to repair the omission from this report of recommendations for the introduction of Income Tax, the opening of the public services to coloured candidates, and the provision of free elementary education.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The Report of the Joint Committee is at present under consideration by the Bermuda Legislature by whom the Committee was appointed. As stated in the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) on 28th January, my right hon. Friend will give this matter early consideration as soon as the proceedings of the Legislature are complete and he has received the Governor's comments.

Mr. Driberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter was discussed in the Bermuda House of Assembly last week, and that, on the whole, approval seems to have been given to this Report? In view of the gravely inadequate and backward nature of the Report, will the Government consider acceding to the original request, which was for a Royal Commission?

Mr. Rees-Williams: My hon. Friend talks of the House of Assembly. However, the Legislative Council, so far as I know, have not yet finally considered; the matter, and we are waiting for their report as well as the Report of the House of Assembly. I think I should point out that the House of Assembly, by 15 votes to five, agreed to provisions for free elementary education.

Commander Noble: Could the hon. Gentleman give us some idea of the value of the real estate required by this extension, in relation to the general value of property in Bermuda? Is it not the fact that the public services are open to both white and black people?

Mr. Rees-Williams: Those are other questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF LORDS (COMPOSITION)

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: asked the Prime Minister if he will now state the Government's policy in regard to reform of the composition of the House of Lords.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Paragraph 5 of the White Paper on the Parliament Bill summarises certain general proposals for reforming the composition of the House of Lords. These I should have been prepared to commend in principle to the Labour Party if it had been possible to find a basis for agreement between the Parties covering both the composition and the powers of a Second Chamber.

Mr. Chamberlain: While thanking the Prime Minister for that information, may I ask him if he is aware that the clear intention of the Government to introduce women into the House of Lords and to abolish the hereditary principle has given great satisfaction to the country?

Mr. Lipson: Will the Government consider continuing their efforts to try to bridge the gap following the conference between the parties?

The Prime Minister: We have given a great deal of time and consideration to try to come to an agreement, and we have failed. I do not think it would be useful to reopen the matter at the present moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (MODERN WEAPONS)

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied that adequate progress is being made in the development of the most modern types of weapon.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir. As was made clear in the Statement Relating to Defence, 1948 (Command 7327), research and development continue to receive the highest priority in the defence field, and all types of modern weapons, including atomic weapons, are being developed.

Mr. Jeger: Can the Minister give any further information on the development of atomic weapons?

Mr. Alexander: No. I do not think it would be in the public interest to do that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Danish Beef (Quality)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the widespread complaints of the quality of the Danish beef being sold in the shops; and what action he is taking.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I am aware that there have been some complaints. Danish beef does not rank with the best of our supplies, but none that has been issued was unfit for consumption. We are giving the Danes all the help we can to secure an improvement in preparing the meat, and any which is not suitable for the ration is issued for manufacturing.

Mr. Gammans: Is it not a fact that this cow beef was sold to this country by the Danes only for manufacturing purposes, and that they have objected most strongly to its being sold for any other purpose, because of the bad name it thus gives to Danish products generally?

Dr. Summerskill: No, not at all. It was quite understood that this was going to be used for the ration.

Meat Importation (Regulation)

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Food if he will make a statement as to what is the purpose of Statutory Instrument No. 886 of 1948.

Dr. Summerskill: The new regulation has been made to permit the importation of carcases of mutton and lamb from which a lymphatic gland has been removed. Our regulations as now amended are in line with those in the Southern Dominions and other exporting countries where such meat is used in the ordinary course for human consumption.

Captain Crowder: Am I to understand that this Order does not apply to beef?

Dr. Summerskill: Experts tell me that it can be found in beef, but it very rarely is; it is generally found in mutton.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Can the Minister tell the House what steps are taken in the way of inspection of these carcases in order to make quite certain that they are fit for human beings to eat?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. I am only too prepared to reassure the House. A very careful inspection is made, and I understand that the prescapular, superficial inguinal, supra mammary and precrural lymphatic glands are all removed. In addition, if a state of emaciation is found and the glands are affected, then the carcase is destroyed.

Mr. Butcher: Is it not a fact that the steps now taken by the Minister have been urged upon him for many months past by the Dominions and other people interested in increasing the meat supply?

Dr. Summerskill: I was with the hon. Gentleman in Australia in 1945, when we examined some of these carcases, and I took a special interest in the matter then. We wanted to be quite sure that this complaint was not communicable to human beings, and that is why we have delayed in making this amendment.

Mr. Scollan: Can my hon. Friend say what steps are being taken to let the people know that this kind of meat is being supplied to them in the butchers'


shops? Will districts have it imposed upon them without their knowledge?

Dr. Summerskill: I have already made it clear that the meat that will be used will be quite as sound as any other meat that has not had the lymphatic gland removed from it.

Fresh Meat Exports

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Food for what reasons fresh meat has been exported from the United Kingdom during the last 12 months; and whether he will name the countries of destination not specified in the trade returns.

Dr. Summerskill: The bulk of the meat exported was for consumption by our Forces overseas, for ships' stores in the Channel Islands and for the civilian population. In the case of Belgium meat was bought and owned by that country, but was stored in the United Kingdom. The countries of destination not specified in the trade accounts are: Malta, St. Helena, Falkland Islands, Burma, Palestine, Egypt, Sierra Leone, Hungary and Austria. The quantities sent to most of these places were very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOAP SUPPLIES (SCHOOLS)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the shortage of soap for children in schools; whether he will issue a special month's supply that can be held as reserve and by being stored for one month will last longer and this will enable schools to have supplies available all the time which cannot be managed at present.

Dr. Summerskill: I know of ho general shortage of soap for school children, but I will gladly look into any particular case if my hon. Friend will send me details. I regret that the difficult supply position will not admit of a special reserve for schools.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (PAMPHLET)

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Health why his pamphlet on the new National Health Service contains a para-

graph headed "Choose your doctor now," in view of the inability of executive councils to supply a choice of doctors as promised in the pamphlet.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I need hardly say that a scheme of this magnitude involves an enormous amount of detailed organisation in the background, and if both doctor and patient are to be able to take advantage of the new arrangements as from 5th July it is essential that they help us to make an early start. In view of the increasing number of doctors applying to participate in the Service, executive councils should soon have no difficulty in putting in touch with such doctors patients who cannot find one themselves.

Sir J. Mellor: Is not this paragraph at the present time completely meaningless, and is the Minister aware that the London Executive Council are advising inquirers to call again in a month's time, when they anticipate that the difficulties will be removed? Does the right hon. Gentleman share that view?

Mr. Bevan: I will make inquiries at once to find out whether the London Executive Council is giving that advice, but I am fairly certain that it is untrue, and that the hon. Gentleman is misinformed about it. At any rate, I think that all Members of this House are now anxious that we should facilitate the starting of this Act on 5th July, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will be as helpful in this matter as other people are trying to be.

Mr. Assheton: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that, whereas some of the propaganda put forward by his Department advises the public that there will be lists of doctors found in the post offices, in fact, they cannot be found there at present?

Mr. Bevan: There will be lists in the post offices and in the town halls as the lists are filled up by the doctors who are applying to join the service. There is obviously some delay among certain doctors at the present time, but they are participating in larger and larger numbers. Indeed, it is to the financial interest of the doctors to get these lists filled up as early as possible.

Mr. Assheton: The lists are not now in the post offices, and can we be assured that they will be in the post offices?

Mr. Bevan: As soon as the doctors have indicated their intention of participating in the service their names will be put in the various places indicated in the leaflet. We must have the support of the public and medical profession unless great inconvenience is to be caused to millions of people.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that public spirited doctors in many places such as Maldon, Essex, have already made public their intention of coming in to help operate this great service, and the only difficulty is that the supply of actual application forms keeps on running out at the post offices because of the enthusiasm of the public?

Mr. Bevan: I am very glad to hear of it, and I will see to it that the supplies of leaflets march with the mounting enthusiasm.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Ought it not to be made clear to the public that when the Minister speaks of people choosing their own doctor, he is referring to general practitioners and not to specialists?

Mr. Bevan: That is made perfectly clear in the leaflet itself. We are speaking all the while about the general practitioners and not about specialists and consultants, who are attached to the regional boards and teaching hospitals.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS OF WAR (REPATRIATION)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War how many prisoners of war are still held in No. 186 Camp, Bury St. Edmunds, pending their return to Berlin; and when he expects arrangements to be made for Berlin transport.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Michael Stewart): Ninety-nine prisoners of war have been temporarily delayed in this camp. Repatriation to Berlin has now been resumed.

Mr. Stokes: Does this mean that the hold up of prisoners of war at Munster Lager due for Berlin has been removed, too?

Mr. Stewart: These difficulties arise owing to the problem of sending military trains to Berlin, and arrangements are now made to send prisoners of war by civilian trains.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSTEL, FEATHERSTONE (FURNITURE)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply why he has ordered the removal of dining room furniture and all easy chairs from his Department's hostel at Brinsford Lodge, Featherstone, in the County of Stafford; why he proposes to have all the beds removed and replaced with wooden bunks; what consultation representatives of his Department had with the residents before these decisions were taken; and whether he will reconsider them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. Jack Jones): The dining room furniture was not suitable for a hostel of this type and has therefore been replaced by the type used at similar hostels. We do not intend to make any other changes, but the hostel is shortly to be transferred to the Ministry of Labour and National Service, who will be responsible for deciding whether further changes should be made in furnishing.

Mr. Swingler: Is my hon. Friend aware that this furniture has been in this hostel for some years and that the residents have enjoyed the present standard of comfort by paying certain charges for it. Why cannot this furniture be handed over to the Ministry of Labour who are taking over the hostel?

Mr. Jones: The intention is to replace this furniture with furniture similar to that used in other hostels and we are getting in place thereof furniture which lends itself to comfort and hygiene—60 fireside chairs, 20 armchairs, 12 settees, etc. It is only the dining room furniture, which was not considered suitable, that has been removed.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is it not rather stupid to carry standardisation to this length?

Mr. Jones: It may appear to be stupid, but in the interests of hygiene and good service, particularly in the dining room, it is necessary to have standardisation.

Mr. Swingler: Would not my hon. Friend agree that when changes are to be made it would be better to consult the residents before, rather than after, taking the decision?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend can rest assured that consultations did take place.


There is appropriate machinery where these domestic matters are discussed, and agreement was arrived at. If he wants further information as to the nature of the discussion, I shall be pleased to furnish it.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: What is unhygienic about dining room furniture?

Mr. Jones: This furniture was old and decrepit and not suitable to remain in its present position.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA (KEROSENE SUPPLIES)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of COMMANDER MAITLAND:

62. To ask the Minister of Fuel and Power what supplies of kerosene are at present in Malta; and what arrangements have been made to ensure that there is no diminuation in supplies owing to the closing down of the Haifa Refinery.

Commander Maitland: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I have an answer to Question No. 62? May I have your guidance?

Mr. Speaker: If the Minister is not here, he cannot give an answer. Perhaps the answer will be sent to the hon. and gallant Member.

Commander Maitland: This Question affects Malta. If I cannot get this Question in again before the Recess how long shall I have to wait?

Mr. Assheton: Is it possible that the Minister of Fuel and Power is taking the rare opportunity of having a bath?

Mr. Speaker: As we have not finished the hour for Questions yet, and as there is a Private Notice Question down, I hope the answer will have arrived by the time it is answered, and then the hon. and gallant Member can ask his Question.

Later—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): I hope the House will accept my apology for not having been here when Question No. 62 was originally called.
It would not be desirable on security grounds to state what stocks of kerosene

exist in Malta. As regards the second part of the Question, I am informed that the supplying companies have arranged to provision Malta from sources in the Persian Gulf.

Commander Maitland: Does the Minister realise that about 90 per cent, of the cooking in Malta is done by kerosene? It is, indeed, the lifeblood of the island. Will he take particular care to see that the Island gets its full supply in all circumstances?

Mr. Robens: We are well aware of those facts. We have no reason to believe that the oil companies are not meeting the essential requirements of the Island.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the serious effect this diminution will have upon unemployment, which is already a very serious problem in Malta?

Mr. Robens: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.A. AND SOVIET UNION

Exchange of Notes

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any communication with respect to the conversations reported to be about to take place between the United States and Soviet Governments.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. The United States Government have now informed me fully of these exchanges. The House will have seen the documents published in the Press, as well as President Truman's statement, and I have no additional information.
Naturally, I have to give careful thought to all that occurs in the international field, but at present I would prefer not to make any statement, although I would like to remind the House that His Majesty's Government always have been, and remain, anxious for a general solution on a world-wide basis, if that is possible. In view, however, of the references to the European Recovery Programme and to the Five Power Treaty by the Soviet Government, I wish to make it clear that nothing that has happened can affect the development and execution of those policies, which, as I explained to the House in my speech of 4th May, are not directed against anyone, but are legitimate developments necessary alike for our own and European prosperity and security.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that he welcomes these exchanges between representatives of the Governments of the Soviet Union and the United States of America?

Mr. Bevin: I want to be quite frank in this answer. I am not anxious to enter into further conferences until the ground has been cleared. I have had too many failures. It is absolutely essential that a good deal of preparatory work is done, and a good deal of what I once called "putting the cards on the table face upwards" has to take place, and then we can possibly get a chance of making a conference for peace really successful. That is the approach—with careful thought, careful action and, I hope, a studious approach, with good will—I shall make to this problem.

Mr. Gallacher: Would it not be possible for the Foreign Secretary of this country to act independently of the United States, to put a few cards on the table, and then invite representatives of the Soviet Union to put down two or three of their cards and have quite frank and open discussions on any questions between them?

Mr. Bevin: Why should I put down all my cards, and the Soviet only two or three? I do not understand that. The fact is that our cards have been on the table from the moment I took office, and in the discussions on Germany I put forward a long document on the further development of European unity, German unity. Unfortunately, I have been unable to get agreement. Really I stand where I stood on 4th May. The evidence all goes to show that the peoples of the world want peace. If the peoples are allowed to meet, they can have peace. It is only the Communists who stand in the way of it.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that if these conversations between the United States and the Soviet Union succeed, they might form part of that preparation for the larger discussion which he has in mind?

Mr. Bevin: I really think that to have a conference and to have it break down again would cause terrible disappointment in the world. I still believe that a great deal of the ground can be cleared by a diplomatic approach, by the exchange of views, and by trying to understand what

it is that everybody is trying to get. If we can do that, then the preparatory work for the conference can be effective, but I suggest that merely to call a conference again on the basis of generalities, without precise preparatory work, will land us exactly where we were with the Four Power Conference, and the public have been disappointed so many times. I must be forgiven if I say to this House and to the world that I am so anxious for peace, so anxious for a settlement with Soviet Russia, that I want to remove any possible ground for misunderstanding by clearing the ground as far as I humanly can.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister give due consideration to the warning given to the world by Sir John Boyd-Orr in his recent speech, and will he, in his approach to this question, consider the broad economic outlook and try his best to negotiate with the Soviet Union in order to break the tension to which Sir John Boyd-Orr referred?

Mr. Bevin: No one has done more than I have done on the economic field since I have held this office. I think the work I described on 4th May in the Far East and in South-East Asia was an evidence of that. All this is based on the assumption that we are holding up the thing. If I can get the idea out of the heads of our friends that it is we who have been holding up peace—I have had no idea of it, I have had nothing to fit in at all, all I want is peace. I emphasise that. All I want is peace, but I cannot get peace in the world if I have to ask the Western Powers, and Powers in other parts of the world, to sacrifice their principles and their spiritual beliefs in order to fit in with something with which they do not agree.

Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to clear up one point? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of, or informed of these negotiations which have now been forced on the public, that obviously have a tremendous propaganda value from the Soviet point of view? Was the Foreign Secretary aware that these negotiations were going on?

Mr. Bevin: No, I was not. I did not know anything about them until I heard about them on the radio on Monday morning. But this is one of the problems, as I understand it. The Ambassador of the United States was instructed to


have an exchange of views with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. That is the normal thing, but before the United States received the reply, it was published over the Tass Agency. I suggest to this House that while that diplomatic usage goes on, that clearing of the ground and understanding is almost impossible, because if an ambassador cannot go to a Foreign Minister in another country and discuss quite frankly and ask questions, and then send back to his government the opinions of the Foreign Minister without publication—this is not secret diplomacy; it is an attempt to ascertain views—if he cannot do that, in order to bring the parties together, then the situation is not only intolerable but peace is impossible.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL ASSISTANCE BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 2.—(The National Assistance Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 5, at the beginning, insert:
For the purpose of securing the prompt discharge of their functions under this Act.

3.30 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
With permission I will refer at the same time to the Amendment to line 6. Both are designed to carry out an undertaking which I gave during Committee stage.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that all these Amendments were agreed to mostly without a Division in the other place and that these two in particular were in pursuit of an undertaking given by the right hon. Gentleman.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 3.—(Advisory committees.)

Lord's Amendment: In page 2, line 21, after "securing" insert "that full use is made of."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We have emphasised on more than one occasion that we should make full use of people with local knowledge and experience. The Amendment is designed for this purpose.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that this Amendment was moved in another place by a noble Lord who was a Member of the Opposition and that it was accepted by the Government. I commend it to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.—(Determination of need for assistance.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 47, leave out from "Act" to first "the" in line 1 on page 3, and insert:
and as to the decision of any such question as aforesaid, and.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a Government Amendment. It is designed to secure that the regulations to be made for the purposes of the Clause, shall deal, amongst other matters, with how a person's need shall be determined.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 9.—(Disqualifications for assistance grants.)

Lords Amendment: In page 5, line 11, after "not" insert:
where regulations of the Board so provide, apply until the expiration of such time from the beginning of the engagement as may be prescribed by the regulations.
(2) The last foregoing Subsection shall not.

Mr. Steele: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is designed to overcome a difficulty incidental to the general principle of the Clause that assistance is not to be granted to a person in respect of any period during which he is in full-time work. The difficulty arises from the general presumption that assistance is granted in advance, whereas wages are paid in arrear. I will give an illustration. Assistance to able-bodied persons is often paid on Fridays. A man who is starting full-time work on a Monday cannot expect to draw any wages until the following Saturday. If the man is maintained by assistance during his unemployment it is desirable, therefore, that he should receive a full week's assistance on the Friday before he starts work. As the assistance must be presumed to be paid in advance, the period for which the assistance is paid would be, at any rate in part, a period during which the man is in full-time work. The assistance would thus contravene the provisions of the Clause as at present drafted.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand it is hoped to secure this end by means of regulations and that the Government believe that this rather complicated matter can be dealt with on that basis. It is, so to speak, a payment in advance, and the man is deemed to be a fit subject for relief until he has been in work for a full week. I understand this Amendment was passed in another place without Debate. This seems a satisfactory way of dealing with this admittedly complicated problem. We shall

be interested to see the regulations and trust that the Minister will be able to let us have a copy. If he can do so in advance it will be helpful.

Mrs. Braddock: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain the position of the man whose employer keeps a week's wages in hand? In many cases a person who commences work after receiving unemployment pay and public assistance has to work a week in hand, so does not obtain any payment for a fortnight. What will be the position of such a man?

Mr. Steele: That is the kind of situation this Amendment is designed to meet.

Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause "A."—(Accommodation in reception centres in special cases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 37, at end insert new Clause "A":
—(1) This Section applies to reception centres (hereinafter referred to as 'designated reception centres') designated by the Minister of National Insurance for the purposes of this Section on the application of the Board.
(2) Where a person seeks lodging in a designated reception centre and it appears to the Board, or if the centre is being provided by a local authority to the local authority, that the said person persistently resorts to reception centres when capable of maintaining himself, the Board or local authority may direct that he shall only be received into the centre subject to the conditions specified in Subsection (4) of this Section.
(3) On a direction being given under the last foregoing Subsection the person to whom it relates may require that the matter shall be referred to the Appeal Tribunal, and if he so requires—

(a) the direction shall not have effect until the matter has been determined by the Tribunal, and
(b) on any such reference the Tribunal may either quash the direction or order that during such period as may be specified in the order he shall only be admitted to a designated reception centre subject to the conditions specified in the next following Subsection.
(4) The conditions hereinbefore referred to are—

(a) that the person in question shall remain at the centre for at least such period from the time he entered it, not exceeding forty-eight hours, as the Board or the local authority providing the centre may require, and
(b) that while the person in question is at the centre he shall do such suitable work within the curtilage thereof as the Board or local authority may require.


(5) A person received into a centre subject to the said conditions shall, if he fails to comply therewith, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause was drafted after consultation with the London County Council. When the system of casual wards was in operation—as it was until the outbreak of war in 1939—casuals entering wards were subject to detention for up to 48 hours and were required to do certain work. The casual ward system is at present suspended. The new arrangements propose that casuals entering reception centres, provided under Clause 17, will not be subject to detention. The only work they will be required to do will be a share of the housework of the centre. Recent experience of the L.C.C., to which our attention has been called, suggests that a number of persons are ready to settle down indefinitely in a centre if they are not subject to some form of discipline. We are reluctant to take any action in such cases except where there is full justification. Our investigations show that in particular cases there is justification, and the Clause is designed to meet such cases. It will be seen that the operation of the Clause is subject to the authority of the Minister being obtained for each particular set of premises to which it is proposed to apply it. This safeguard will be retained by the Minister.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In each particular centre, or in certain cases only?

Mr. Griffiths: In each particular centre. Subsection (3) gives a right of appeal to the person with whom it is proposed to deal under the Clause. If such a person indicates his intention to appeal the operation of the Clause is suspended until his appeal has been heard. I thought it was essential to insert those two protections, first, to retain for the Minister the right to designate any particular premises and, secondly, to protect people who seek accommodation by giving them the right of appeal and making any order unenforceable until their appeal has been heard. The Board were satisfied that some arrangements of this kind were required for a particular centre. We do

not think there are very many in the whole of the country, but we have amply covered ourselves. The London County Council made out a case that it was essential and desirable and that is why we agreed to this proposal.

Lieut. Colonel Elliot: This is admittedly a thorny problem. When it was considered by Standing Committee it caused a great deal of heart-searching. It was common agreement that some provisions of the kind were necessary. Admittedly the Committee were very desirous that they should be surrounded with due safeguards, and in the other place the provisions here were accepted unanimously without a vote after a brief Debate. This is obviously a case where we shall proceed by trial and error, but we should move cautiously. On this side of the House we believe that these powers are necessary and the Minister has taken them to safeguard his position and the position of those who come under the powers of the Measure and under the new Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope the Minister will assure the House that the powers in this new Clause, if they are used at all, will be used with very great caution. Obviously, they open the back door to the restoration of a great deal that it is the object of this Bill to sweep away. I know that the Minister is satisfied that he needs some kind of powers, and I would not take the responsibility of opposing them here, but I should like him to say a word or two about the way in which the powers will be exercised. For instance, the Clause does not give us very much information as to the kind of person to whom this direction will, in fact, be applied; what will be the basis of an appeal to the tribunal; what kind of direction will be given to the tribunal in order to adjudicate; how long will it take a tribunal to decide upon such a case; what happens in the meantime; or what kind of work will be asked for, in what place, between what hours and under what conditions? It seems to me a pity that the Minister felt obliged to accept this Clause at all. I hope he will give us a little more information about it before he asks us to add it to the Bill.

Mr. Berry: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)


draws attention to the difficulties of this new Clause. We are all one with my hon. Friend in what he says, for none of us wants to see the restoration of the conditions that this Bill is designed to abolish once and for all. If we lived in a perfect world—and some of us are doubtful whether we could live in a perfect world—

Mr. S. Silverman: We should not need any of these reception centres in a perfect world.

Mr. Berry: Nor should we need the safeguards. We do not live in a perfect world and since the war the world has become increasingly difficult. Speaking on behalf of the London County Council, I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for including this Clause. I agree that this thing requires greater safeguards, but we can leave the regulations safely in the hands of the Minister. On behalf of the County Council I can assure the Minister and the House that we do not intend that there should be any harsh enforcement of these regulations.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I should like to say that I was reluctant to accept any provision of this kind. Our attention was called to one institution in London by the London County Council, and we took particular steps to find out whether the problem required some power and authority in the Bill. This problem is one of people using these homes for a permanent residence when they are not intended for any such purpose. Only one institution has been brought to my notice and I do not want to name it. Indeed, I do not think it would be wise to do so, and so I hope I will not be pressed on that score. We took careful steps to find out that there was a problem which required the powers provided in the Clause. Having decided there was, we were anxious to follow out the purpose and the spirit of the scheme and so we laid it down that first, these regulations were not to apply to any single institution unless I gave authority for it; and, secondly, if it should be applied to any particular centre and imposed on any individual he or she can appeal, and pending that appeal the powers in the

Clause will not be enforced against that person. We have safeguarded ourselves in every possible way, but this new Clause is designed to deal with particular circumstances. It is our hope that there are no other such institutions in the country, but it is essential that in the Bill we should try to protect ourselves while at the same time carrying through the spirit and purpose of the Bill.

Mrs. Braddock: I am still not quite satisfied. I should like to know what type of work is being suggested in Subsection 4 (b). If this is a question of a deterrent in order to get somebody out of a reception centre, what sort of work is it suggested that he ought to be given, because if it is the ordinary type of work, I should not think that that would be the sort of thing to prevent someone remaining at a reception centre. On the other hand, if it is suggested that some other sort of work ought to be applied or insisted upon, then we are getting dangerously near the type of task work we objected so strongly to in the years after the last war. This is a matter about which I am not very happy. I do not think that the type of reception centre that we suggest here is going to be anything like the workhouse where certain sorts of work could be suggested for people to do. I should like the Minister to say something further than has been said up to now about this position, particularly in reference to the sort of work that is going to be suggested and whether it will be the sort of work which will prevent people staying at a reception centre if they desire to do so.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 18.—(Management of re-estab- lishment and reception centres.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 43, leave out from "thereof" to "shall" in line 44.

Mr. Steele: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was decided upon by the Government in consultation with the London County Council. The Clause, as amended, makes it possible to deal with persons who refuse to comply with the provisions of the regulation which requires


them to assist with the domestic work of the institution.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 2, to leave out from "month" to end of line 3.

Mr. Steele: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Clause as it stood made it possible for a person who infringes the regulations to be fined £10 or sent to prison for not more than a month, or both. The effect of the Amendment makes it impossible to impose both.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 3, at end, insert:
(2) Regulations under the last foregoing Subsection may include provision requiring persons accommodated or received in centres, or specified classes of such persons, to do such work for assisting in the running of the centres as may be specified by or under the regulations.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Amendment is designed to ensure that the assistance required from the inmates of the centre would ordinarily be limited to work which can be completed by midday and will not be exacted where there is a good reason why inmates should leave earlier.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 13, leave out from "aforesaid" to end of line 14.

Mr. Steele: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This follows an Amendment which I have already moved. It amends Subsection (2) of Clause 18 in the same way as we have already amended Subsection (1).

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 36—(Registration of disabled persons' and old persons' homes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 24, line 33, leave out "at the home" and insert:
in the management of the home or any part thereof.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The language of the Bill before this Amendment would have enabled the Minister to lay down conditions controlling the appointment of any person at any old persons' home or disabled persons' home which will now be liable to be inspected under the Act. We felt that was rather wide and that we really only wanted to concern ourselves with the management of the home and not with individual members of the staff. We are therefore restricting this provision.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 40.—(Registration of charities for disabled persons.)

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 4, at end, insert:
(e) paragraph (e) of Subsection (1) of the said Section four (under which regulations may require appeals and advertisements to state that a charity is registered under the said Act of 1940) shall have effect as if for the words 'under this Act' there were substituted the words 'in accordance with the National Assistance Act, 1948.'

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Hon. Members will recall that it is intended to make use of voluntary organisations to carry out a certain amount of welfare work under the supervision and control of the local authorities. These voluntary organisations do not like to register under the War Charities Act and so we are allowing them to register under this Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This is an admirable Amendment. It is the desire of both sides of the House that voluntary organisations should be brought into this work wherever possible and that theiramour propre should be consulted in regard to their disinclination to be registered as war charities. That is a reasonable request, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 41.—(Liability to maintain wife or husband, and children.)

Lords Amendment: In line 27 leave out from "The" to end of line 29 and insert:
reference in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection to a man's children includes a reference to children of whom he has been


adjudged to be the putative father, and the reference in paragraph (b) of that subsection to a woman's children includes a reference to her illegitimate children.

Mr. Griffiths: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is remedial. It would appear that the provisions of the Bill as it left this House would have enabled us to require from the putative father maintenance for his child before the matter had been decided in the courts. The Amendment is designed to ensure that we cannot do this until paternity has been established.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In line 29, at end, insert:
(3) In the application of Subsection (2) of this Section to Scotland for the reference to children of whom a man has been adjudged to be the putative father there shall be substituted a reference to children his paternity of whom has been admitted or otherwise established.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. J. Robertson): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The immediately preceding Amendment limits a man's liability for the maintenance of his illegitimate children to the children of whom he has been adjudged the putative father, the object being to bring the Clause into accordance with the English law. In Scotland a man is liable for the maintenance of his illegitimate child. Section 80 of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845, authorises the prosecution of a putative father failing to maintain his illegitimate child if the paternity has been admitted or otherwise established. It is felt that the principle established in Scottish law should be safeguarded as indicated in the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is desirable that the Scottish law should be maintained here. The Under-Secretary and I seem to be seing a great deal of each other just now, having spent all yesterday, the whole of last night and all this forenoon together in the Committee room upstairs and shortly to adjourn there again. It is therefore undesirable to prolong our discussions on this relatively uncontroversial matter. I would only say that on this occasion both he and I are at one.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 43.—(Affiliation orders.)

Lords Amendment: In page 30, line 44, at end insert:
and the provisions of the last foregoing Section shall not apply in relation to the father of the child.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The purpose is to enable the putative father who is concerned under this Act to have the benefit of the Bastardy Acts in general and not be limited in his rights.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 31, line 31, after "Scotland" insert:
Subsection (1) shall have effect as if all the words after 'Part III of this Act' were omitted and

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Robertson: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Scottish Amendment will omit the words of the previous Amendment in the application of the Subsection to Scotland. Clause 43 gives the Assistance Board and the local authorities in Scotland power to raise action of affiliation and aliment where assistance is granted in respect of an illegitimate child. Clause 42 enables the Board or local authority to seek a maintenance order against anyone liable to maintain a person who is being assisted. It appears that in England it would be appropriate to take civil proceedings against the putative father under Clause 43 only. There is no reason why in Scotland it should not remain possible, as in the Bill as printed, for proceedings to be taken against the putative father under either Clause 42 or Clause 43 as appropriate. For example. Clause 42 might be the more appropriate provision where the mother was for any reason not available and the father had already admitted paternity.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I understand that in Scotland we prefer the Bill as it is printed and do not feel the need for the previous Amendment and therefore the Under-Secretary is moving that that Amendment should not apply in the case of Scotland. That is the desire of the Scottish authorities and those connected with these questions in Scotland, and I commend this to the House.

Question put, and agreed to.

New Clause "B."—(Expenses of council officers acting as Receivers.)

Lords Amendment: In page 36, line 29, insert new Clause "B":
Where an officer of the council of a county or county borough with the permission of the council applies for appointment under Section one of the Lunacy Act, 1908, to exercise the powers of management of property referred to in that section, the council may defray any expenses incurred by him in connection with the application or the exercise of the said powers, in so far as those expenses are not recoverable by him from any other source.

Mr. Bevan: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is the prerogative of public assistance authorities to designate a senior officer to take charge of the possessions of a lunatic, and also to set their charges against the estate of the insane person. In the future, they will not be able to make any charges whatsoever, except in respect of the actual work they do in discharging the estate, because detention in a mental institution will be free. However, unless we put into the Bill the authority contained in the proposed new Clause, it will not be possible for a local authority to designate a senior officer to look after the estate of an insane person.

Question put, and agreed to.

Sixth Schedule.—(Transitional provisions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 56, line 13, after "chairman," insert:" or other appointed member."

Mr. Steele: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Schedule here provides that chairmen of tribunals and panels of workpeople shall continue in office for the purpose of the new tribunals until the Minister makes other nominations. The Amendment, and one which follows in similar terms to line 16, are designed to secure that the remaining members of the existing tribunals who were appointed by the Board to represent the Board shall act as additional appointees of the Minister on the new tribunals until my right hon. Friend makes the other appointments. I think the House will readily understand that, owing to the shortage of time between now and the appointed day, my right hon. Friend does not feel able to make the necessary

appointments before that day. He therefore wants to use this method until he has sufficient time to make new appointments with the necessary care.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The practical step of making a clean cut, which was desired by the Committee, is perhaps being pressed a little far. Nevertheless, the change-over will require a certain amount of shading from the old into the new. We may take it that the Act will be administered with charity and kindness and that the decision of the Minister in this regard will be welcomed by the people chiefly concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 60, line 40, to leave out from "in," to "shall" in line 44, and insert:
the lunatic ward of a poorhouse within the meaning of the said Act, and the poorhouse as a whole was mainly being used for purpose other than hospital purposes.
(i) the ward

Mr. Robertson: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
Paragraphs 7 and 9 of this Schedule provide that a poorhouse in which provision is made for the sick shall go over to the regional hospital board or shall remain with the local authority, according to whether the poorhouse is mainly used for hospital purposes or not. Some of the poorhouses contain wards specially licensed for the accommodation of lunatics. The question in determining if a poorhouse is mainly used for hospital purposes, has been whether such licensed wards are used for such purposes. Doubt arises because the Lunacy (Scotland) Act, 1862, authorises the licensing of those wards only for the accommodation of lunatics who do not require curative treatment, while "hospital purposes" is defined in the Schedule as the provision of medical treatment. The Amendment is designed to remove the doubt which exists, and it is consequential upon the Amendment which follows it on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: In Scotland, emphasis has generally been laid on the curative treatment of lunacy. Our laws differ in some most important respects from those of England. I understand that the provisions now being discussed are intended to preserve that difference and to remove a doubt referred to by the


Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. We have also an example before us of how a consequential Amendment can come before the matter to which it is the consequence. In these days, when Time is regarded as only a mode of thought we must get accustomed to consequences coming before the facts. It is a somewhat remarkable case and I thought it desirable that some notice should be taken of it, if not upon the Journal of the House, then in our Official Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

Seventh Schedule.—(Enactments repealed.)

Lords Amendment: In page 70, to leave out lines 51 and 52.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We thought at first we could repeal Section 15 of the Family Allowances Act, but we find that we shall have to preserve it until the cases it covers are discontinued.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: This Amendment derives from the fact that upon a careful review it was found that the extremely clean cut which was made was not quite as necessary as the Committee thought it to be at the time.

Question put, and agreed to.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [Several with special entries].

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.10 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move," That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This small but important Bill is intended to remedy what we regard as a defect in the main Act. The defect was brought to light in the course of the discussion of the Act and in working out the details of it in order to bring it into force on 5th July. We thought that an amending Bill was desirable.
Hon. Members may recall that in Committee on the main Act I introduced a new Clause to make Fuller provision for Persons assessed for Partial disability who

were prevented by their injuries from returning to their old occupation. When introducing the Clause I said that we had had a number of very hard cases cited to us, discussed matters such as the engineman's eye. The problem is a difficult one. We gave it the best consideration we could and we discussed the matter with the T.U.C. and other people interested. We hoped that the proposals which we put forward at the time would meet the case.
Those proposals eventually became Section 14 of the Act. It is a fairly long Section but the essence of it is to provide for increasing the weekly rates of a disablement pension by us. 3d. if two conditions are fulfilled. The first condition is that as a result of loss of faculties arising from his injury, the man is incapable, and likely to remain permanently incapable, of following his regular occupation. The second condition is that he is incapable of following employment of an equivalent standard suitable in his case. There are various provisions dealing with what is meant by "regular occupation," and for a provision for a ceiling of 45s. The points to which I wish to direct special attention concerns the 11s. 3d., and the conditions governing the grant of allowances, especially the first condition with its reference to the man's being likely to remain permanently incapable. The Bill proposes to increase the amount of that allowance.
First, as regards the amount. In the course of our examination of the problems relating to the introduction of the new scheme, we have examined a number of cases in which workmen's compensation has been granted for what might be regarded as minor injuries but of a kind which prevent a man from returning to his old job. We hoped, on the basis of information available at the time when we introduced the Clause, that the allowance of us. 3d. would prove sufficient to deal fairly with such cases. We find now that that amount might not be enough in an important number of cases. We propose to substitute for us. 3d. an amount not exceeding 20s. According to information we have gained now, we think that that sum is about the right amount.
Hon. Members may ask: "Why not as flat rate of 20s.? "Perhaps I might explain why we propose to make an adjust-persons to make an adjust able scale up to a maximum of 20s. Where


the injured man is unable to get anything like an equivalent job, the amount will be 20s., but with an allowance of as much as £1 per week we feel that if it was a flat rate in every case, there might be cases in which the hardship allowance would give the man a total sum which would be more than his earnings in his old job. We think that might create anomalies. As this allowance is designed to prevent hardship, we believe that having regard to the information which has come to our knowledge, it is better to provide for it to be adjustable. There are really two stages in deciding a claim to hardship allowance. First of all, to decide whether an allowance is payable or not, and to do that we have to compare the general standard of the claimant's regular job before the accident and the standard of the job which he is doing or is capable of doing after the accident. In particular, we have to compare the standards of remuneration of the two jobs. If the new standard is lower than the old, he will get the allowance and the amount of the allowance must not exceed the difference between the two.
I can best explain this by giving an example. Let us assume that a man has been in a job where the standard rate was £6 a week, and that after the accident he is capable of doing a job for which the standard rate is £5 10s. a week. The hardship would be a hardship as expressed by the difference of 10s., and the allowance would be 10s. If the alternative job is worth £5, whereas the regular job before the accident is worth £6, the allowance will be 20s. That is a simple example. I am sure hon. Members in every part of the House will appreciate that it is wise to make it an adjustable amount up to a maximum of 20s. From the information which we have got, we believe that an adjustable scale of that kind will fill the need.
I now come to the conditions for granting the allowance. The Clause as amended will still deal, as did the original Clause, with hardship suffered by a man who as the result of the accident is unable to return to his old job. It is still open to the criticism that was made by many hon. Members opposite, and notably the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to the original Clause, namely, that it impairs one of the main features of the new scheme which was to get away from all considerations of earning capacity

and replace it by loss of faculty. I think, we air recognise that the change-over from the old to the new scheme will not be easy. I am sure we all want to do what we can to make the change as smooth as possible. The main condition of the existing Section is that a man should not only be incapable of following his regular occupation—that is a matter which will not be difficult to determine—but also that he is likely to remain permanently incapable of doing so. It is about this requirement that the man must be permanently incapable of following his job, that our further inquiries have given rise to some doubts with which we thought it was desirable to deal before the new scheme begins on 5th July.
Rehabilitation, I am thankful to say, is making very great strides in this country. Nowadays, as we have all seen, men are being restored to full capability for work after sustaining injuries which only a few years ago would have left them crippled for life. We are very glad that this is so, because to get men fit and well again to do their old job is the greatest service that we can render them. I hope that on and after 5th July when the new scheme comes into operation, my Department, by the use of the powers which are vested in us by the Act to promote research into the causes and prevention of accidents, will be able to link up with the rehabilitation work that is going on, and thus make a real contribution towards getting rid of the causes and results of industrial accidents and disease.
In the meantime, improvements in methods of rehabilitation are likely to have the effect of making doctors, quite naturally, reluctant to certify that a man is likely to be permanently incapable of following his old occupation—at any rate, not until all the possibilities of rehabilitation have been fully tried and have failed. Therefore, unless we make this amendment, there is a real risk that rehabilitation schemes may make the Section a dead letter by making it too difficult for a doctor to certify that a man is permanently incapacitated. A doctor would say, "Send the man to the rehabilitation centre and see whether something can be done to assist him." There have been many successes, and I appreciate that doctors will become increasingly reluctant to pronounce that a man is permanently unfit. If we reached the stage where we could not get doctors to pronounce


that a man was permanently incapable of going back to his old job, it would mean that the Section would become a dead letter.
We are adding in this new Bill an alternative condition to the condition of permanent incapacity, to provide that if a man at the end of the injury benefit period—that is, the first six months during which he will get his injury benefit —is for the time being incapable of resuming his regular job, a claim will lie under the Section. This will enable us to grant an allowance for the period while the possibilities of treatment are being considered. Once a man has been found capable of rehabilitation, resuming his old occupation or taking up one of equivalent standard, he will cease to be entitled to the allowance. We realise, however, that many people will have to try themselves out after an accident and, by practical experience, find out if they have recovered sufficiently to carry on or not.
I know how important it is to say to a man "Go and try your old job. If you feel you cannot do it, come back to us." As the Section was originally constructed, we found that if a man went back to his old job and did it for a week or two, it would have been impossible for us to restore the hardship allowance to him. Accordingly we provide in Subsection (2, a) for regulations to be made to disregard periods of trial or training in deciding whether the man has been incapable at all times, since the end of the injury benefit period, of doing his old job or one of equivalent standard.
The regulations which I will make under this provision will have to be submitted in due course to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. In a case of this kind it is wise for the Minister to seek the advice and assistance of an experienced body of men, such as I have been fortunate indeed to get together on the Council, who can work out the best arrangements for carrying out the new provision. I therefore propose to make this a regulation-making Clause, and to submit the regulations to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council and get their help. A man who is likely to remain permanently incapable without any question will still be entitled to an allowance under the original provision, which we are preserving, in paragraph (1) (a) of the Schedule.
I do not think I need say much about the remaining provisions of the Bill. The new wording at the beginning of paragraph (3) of the Schedule is necessary, because while at the old rate of IIs. 3d. an unemployability supplement would always have been better than the hardship allowance, and it was therefore right to say the unemployability supplement would always be paid instead of an allowance under this section; with the new rate of 20s. a juvenile might be better off with the hardship allowance than with the unemployability supplement. He will, of course, get the more favourable of the two.
This, as I have said, is a small Bill. It deals with a difficult problem which I realise is one to which we shall have to give a good deal of time and thought, especially in the early days of the new scheme before men get accustomed to the advantages of a permanent pension payable irrespective of earning capacity, as compared with workmen's compensation, and partial payments in particular, which are liable at any time to be withdrawn or reduced a?, soon as a man is found to be capable of work. It will be very difficult for the ordinary man to make up his mind which is best—£2 partial compensation subject to the whims of the Workmen's Compensation Act, or a disablement pension of perhaps less than that. It is essential to have a provision of this kind in this difficult transition stage. This Clause is something betwixt and between the old and the new plans, and I hope and believe that it will prove a useful bridge, and will enable us to make the change from one to the other more smoothly than we could hope to do without it.
Now for a word as to the cost. The Actuary has not been able to give an accurate estimate of the ultimate cost of the new provision; he has advised me that in the early days of the scheme it will be unlikely to exceed £500,000 a year, but that it may ultimately rise to £1 million or £2 million a year. In the circumstances, it is not thought necessary to increase the contribution in order to make this new provision.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Could the right hon. Gentlemen tell us what relation this figure of £1 million or £2 million per annum which this Bill may


cost the Fund, bears to the total annual outgoings of the Fund?

Mr. Griffiths: It will be about £1 million or £2 million to about £30 million to £32 million. There are only about eight weeks left before we introduce this new scheme, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. We shall be introducing it with the National Insurance Act and the National Health Service Act. May I mention one point? In many respects, the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act is—I use the word in its technical sense—the most revolutionary of all these Measures, and makes the biggest break with the past. We believe it is right to break with the past. We think it will be to the advantage of everybody. We are all very anxious that this new scheme shall work. It is because I fear that without a provision of this kind that there may be difficulties in the transitional period that I thought it was desirable that I should bring this Bill before the House and ask the House to agree to it and make it a part of the main Act so that it can come into operation on 5th July. I believe that this small but important Bill will help us to bridge the transitional stage and make it a smooth one, and will help to make the industrial injuries scheme a success which we all want. For those reasons, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading.

4.28 p.m.

Mr. Peake: Having spent more than half of my working time as a junior Minister for something like three years in working on both the principles and the details of the new scheme of industrial injuries insurance, I can well appreciate the difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has had in dealing with this problem. Believing as we did that in practically every respect the new scheme would be immensely superior to the old scheme of workmen's compensation, we always realised that there would be a comparatively small number of cases where a man might fare worse financially when his pension was assessed in terms of percentage disability than he would have fared under the old Workmen's Compensation Acts when his pension was measured in terms of loss of earning capacity. That is one of the points which, I think, made certain Members of the right hon. Gentleman's

party a little dubious about the new scheme when it was discussed in this House in 1944.
During the Committee stage of the Bill in 1945, the right hon. Gentleman introduced Section 14, which had not been contemplated in the proposals set out by the Coalition Government earlier, in an attempt to deal with this special problem. The provisions were that there should be a hardship allowance, where the loss of earnings was greater than it would have been under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, of a fixed sum of us. 3d. a week in the case of the adult employee. I cannot remember, but I imagine that that was to be scaled down in the case of juveniles.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No, that is one of the reasons we have to make the adjustment now. It is us. 3d. for all classes and for juveniles.

Mr. Peake: I thank the right hon. Member; my mind was not clear on that point. It was experimental in character, and certain conditions had to be imposed. In the first place, a condition had to be imposed that the addition would not bring up the amount to more than 45s. and that the hardship allowance and the unem-ployability allowance should be mutually exclusive. I am inclined to think that the modifications of Section 14 which are now proposed are necessary and desirable. I am a little doubtful, however, about the drafting of Subsection (1) of Section 14 as it will be after it has been amended by this Bill. Subsection (1) in the reprint in the Schedule says:
The weekly rate of a disablement pension shall, subject to the following provisions of this Section, be increased by an amount not exceeding twenty shillings, if as the result of the relevant loss of faculty the beneficiary—

(a) is incapable and likely to remain permanently incapable of following his regular occupation; and
(b) is incapable of following employment of an equivalent standard which is suitable in his case;"
Then we get the new provision:
or if as the result of the relevant loss of faculty the beneficiary is and has at all times since the end of the injury benefit period been incapable of following the said occupation or any such employment as aforesaid.
What is intended is that this new alternative shall be alternative to the two conditions which have been fulfilled in the


Clause as originally set out; that is to say, the claimant has either to fulfil both conditions (a) and (b), or to fulfil the conditions in the new alternative. I am not at all sure that anyone reading this as it now stands might not read the new alternative as an alternative only to the words contained in condition (b). I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman might consider inserting after the word "beneficiary" in the fourth line "either," which would make it perfectly clear that the new alternative was an alternative to the two conditions which had to be fulfilled as the Clause originally stood.
There is another new feature to which the right hon. Gentleman drew attention. Whereas the old hardship allowance was a fixed sum in all cases of us. 3d., the new hardship allowance is to be a sum not exceeding 20s. Therefore, we get back, in a very limited field of cases, to a relationship between benefit on the one hand and loss of earning capacity on the other. It was one of the great advantages of the new plan, as compared with the old, that we got away altogether from the calculation of loss of earning capacity. I appreciate that it might have been difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to have made the 20s. hardship allowance a fixed sum in all cases. That would have led to serious anomalies, particularly in the case of juvenile workers and, no doubt for that reason, he has introduced this element of the calculation of loss of earning capacity. I am not disposed to quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman on that score, but I think it is right that the attention of the House should be drawn to the point that, to a limited extent, we are going back to a calculation of the loss of earning capacity.
There is another point with which I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to deal. We on this side of the House have always attached the greatest importance to Service casualties being treated no worse than persons disabled in the course of industrial employment. Many of my hon. Friends think there is a strong case for a man disabled in the service of the Crown, whether in the Army, Air Force or Navy, being treated to some extent better than the industrial casualty. One thing that is quite certain is that no one would tolerate industrial casualties being treated more generously than those who

have been disabled in the service of their country. I would like the right hon. Gentleman or the Parliamentary Secretary to make clear that a corresponding provision to this has been, or will be, made—

Mr. J. Griffiths: It has been made already.

Mr. Peake: —in the Royal Warrant which governs the payment of pensions to Service cases. With that assurance, we will give the Second Reading of this Bill an unobstructed passage.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Brown: I wish to express thanks to the Minister and his Department for the discovery of this anomaly before the Act became fully operative. There will, however, still be a large number of cases to which we shall have to give some thought, and I am sure the Minister knows what is in my mind. I refer to the pre-1924 cases. I want to know whether the improvement in this Bill will be applicable to the pre-1924 cases. If the hardship allowance does not apply to them, I am afraid that a large number of persons who were injured in industry prior to the passing of the 1925 Act will remain dissatisfied.
Under the principal Act, which becomes operative on 5th July, only two benefits will be applicable to the pre-1924 cases. They will be entitled, if they sustain their claim, to the unemployability allowance and the constant medical attention allowance. They have to prove their cases before they get the benefit of the Act which becomes operative on 5th July. I want to know whether the improvement which is the object of this Bill will be applicable to them. Those of us who have spent a lifetime in dealing with such cases, particularly in the mining industry, know full well that men who met with accidents before 1924 have never had advances on their pensions since that date. In my constituency, as I pointed out in an earlier Debate, there are two such men. One is totally blind, and the amount of compensation he has received since his accident is 21s. 11d. I know that he will get the benefit of the unemployability allowance, which is a step in the right direction, but there are many other cases in which no advance has been given. I am concerned that the objective of this Bill shall be applicable to the pre-1924 cases and


I wish to have an assurance from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary on that matter.
While the Bill does not go as far as I would like it to go, it makes a tremendous step towards improving the conditions of those who have suffered great hardship, although, as the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said, it is going very near to the old system for the calculation of compensation. In the Act, which this Bill seeks to amend, we have gone a long way, but unfortunately it was difficult to escape some of the complexities of the old Compensation Acts, 1893 to 1925. As I have spent a great deal of my lifetime in dealing with compensation, I express gratitude to the Minister and his Department for having discovered this anomaly before the Act becomes operative, but I hope he will pay serious regard to the position of the pre-1924 cases.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I wish to add my congratulations to the Minister on having brought forward this Bill on his own initiative. It has been said by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) that this is the resurrection, in a limited sense, of the loss of earning capacity fixed in the 1944 Act. There is, however, a marked difference. If a man gets the 20s. hardship allowance suggested in the Bill and his wages are higher than his pre-accident wages, he will still have the disability pension under the Act, which he did not enjoy under the old Compensation Acts. There is a tremendous difference in comparing the new with the old. I would like to see the pre-1924 cases covered, but that is not part of this Bill. I hope the employers of this country, who will get no insurance for the liability they carry, will come to an agreement with the Treasury so that all these things can be brought within the ambit of the new Measure.
This Bill is an improvement to the Bill which we discussed in Standing Committee "A." In the discussion that took place in the Standing Committee, many of us on this side were very much disturbed by the figure of us. 3d. in the Bill, and we were disturbed because of the fact that the loss of earning capacity in the Bill where wages are high will now act to the benefit of compensation cases. We remember 1926, when it acted the

other way, when wages were low, and when a man who had lost an arm, an eye, or a leg and who happened to go to another job, found that he had no compensation because there was no loss of earning capacity. If they did get anything, it was a very small amount, because the disparity in wages between the pre-accident and post-accident earnings was very small.
Under the rule about the loss of earning capacity, some men got no compensation at all, and the reason was that, after a certain period of total disability, they went back to their pre-accident employment, and after a few weeks there came out again. The fact that they had been back to their pre-accident employment after their accident prevented them from ever coming back into compensation again. This Bill will mean that these people will get a much better chance in regard to that situation. If a man suffers an accident and cannot follow his pre-accident employment, he will have 38s. a week on top of his post-accident employment earnings, and that makes a considerable difference to his compensation.
The greatest feature in this Bill, in my opinion, is the fact that, after 26 weeks of disability, a man can go to another job with a view to recovering his strength in order to go back to his pre-accident employment. If a man has a fractured pelvis or a broken leg, we cannot expect him, at the end of 26 weeks' disability, immediately to go back to the coalface unless he has had a period in which to get accustomed, in his worsened condition, to conditions in the pit. This Bill will provide that, during the period when he is regaining his strength after his period of total incapacity, and until he actually regains his strength, he will get his hardship allowance and his income will not be diminished to such an extent at it would have been if this provision had not been made. Because this provision affects rehabilitation, particularly in the mining industry, we extend our grateful thanks and compliment the Minister on this Bill.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I wish to support my hon. Friends the Members for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) in one thing—the request which they made to the Minister about the pre-1924 cases. I have


the honour to represent a mining division, and, at every meeting, as we explain the new terms of the law which will come into force on 5th July next, we get questions on these matters. I do not know if the Minister has any idea how many people are still suffering from that anomaly with which he has not managed to catch up in this Bill. It may be outside the Title of this Bill, but, at meetings which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks) and I attended recently, we were cross-examined on this matter. I have been busy on other Bills, and I must confess that I am not aware why there is this discrimination between men injured before 1924 and those who have sustained injuries since. Perhaps the Minister, when he is replying, will speak about this discrimination, and will also say whether he can hold out any prospect of it being removed soon.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I thank those hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate for their very kind references to the Bill, to myself and to my Department? Let me deal first with the detailed points that have been made. In regard to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) about the wording, I shall make sure that the construction which he has placed upon it is not the right one. I will look up the matter, and, if his fears are well-founded, I will take steps to see that the words are changed. It has been announced already —and this is a Government that works together, not in compartments—that similar provisions will apply to Service casualties. When we make provisions for one section, we do it for others as well.
May I explain the position about the old cases? The Act enables us to make two payments to those who are injured and are rendered unemployable by injury or disease, even though the injury or disablement takes place before 5th July. First, there is a condition that must be fulfilled. They must be in receipt of weekly compensation. If they have commuted their weekly compensation for a lump sum, the case has been finally settled, and that disposes of it. If, however, they are in receipt of weekly payments, and if as a result of injury or disease they are rendered unemployable, they can apply to us for the unemployability supplement, and we can give them a supplement of 20s. from the new indus-

trial injuries fund, in addition to their weekly compensation, whatever it is.

Mr. Harrison: Would the means test be a part of that?

Mr. Griffiths: No, there is no means test. If a man is injured by accident or disabled by disease and rendered unemployable as a consequence, and he is in receipt of weekly compensation, we will pay him 20s. unemployability supplement in addition to the weekly compensation which he receives. Furthermore, if the man, in addition to being rendered unemployable, sustains injuries which are of such a character that he needs constant attendance, we can pay him an additional allowance up to 20s. a week, and, in very serious cases, up to 40s. a week. These two provisions apply to those in receipt of weekly compensation on 5th July and who satisfy these conditions, and they apply to the pre-1924 cases as well.
I expressed the view two years ago that it was my desire and that of the Government, if we could, before 5th July, when the new Act comes into operation, to make arrangements by which the old cases could be brought entirely within the scope of the new Measure. That involves two things—the responsibility for the old cases and the responsibilities of the employers. I am sure that no hon. Member or the House would ask me to accept responsibility for paying old cases out of the industrial injuries fund when the employers discharge their liability by means of a lump sum. Many people after an accident have decided to take a lump sum settlement, and that is not the difficulty in one case, but in thousands of cases. That is the first problem, and experts have been working on it for some time, but there is also another. If we bring all the old cases into the new scheme, on what terms are we to convert their workmen's compensation payments into a proper disablement pension? I am very anxious that, when we do bring it forward, we shall bring it forward in such a way as to provide general satisfaction. The problem is that of the weekly payments, and the difficulty of getting over the loss of earning capacity is not an easy one.
It is most desirable, before we come to to a final statement on this matter, that we shall have had experience of the working of the new scheme. I therefore met


representatives of the workers in the trade unions, and put to them the view that we ought to wait until we have had a few months' experience of the new scheme and then examine the problem still further to see whether, in the light of the experience of the new scheme, it would be possible for us to arrive at a method by which we could arrange to take over the old cases. I have given a further undertaking that we shall come to a final conclusion one way or the other within 12 months of the operative date of 5th July. In the very near future, we shall be inviting the old cases—the people who believe they are entitled to the unemployability allowance—to make application, and we shall deal with them as soon as we can and make these payments available to them.

Mr. Bowles: I imagine that the great mass of employers are insured against workmen's compensation claims. When 5th July comes along, what happens to their funds, which they have kept against unsettled claims under the Compensation Acts? Are they to be allowed to keep them, or is the Ministry entitled to them? Could we have some consultation in order to arrive at some figure at which to commute the lot?

Mr. Griffiths: That is one of the difficulties. When I entered negotiations, I thought there was a nest-egg, but, as a matter of fact, the growing practice has been to finance workmen's compensation payments, not on a day-to-day basis, but on a fortnightly basis. It is difficult to arrive at any arrangements in a way that is fair to all. It is very difficult for a man to make up his mind what is the best for him—whether to accept x pounds, subject to deduction and withdrawal as a result of post-accident earnings, or a fixed sum to be paid to him for the rest of his life without having any effect on his earnings. That is the problem we have to face, and, when we have had experience of the new scheme, we shall be in a better position to face it. I am just as anxious as anyone to do it, but I am also anxious to do it in the right way.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[Mr. Richard Adams.]

RIVER BOARDS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(Publicity for proceedings of river boards.)

(1) The minutes of proceedings of meetings of a river board shall be open to the inspection of any local government elector for any part of the river board area, on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling, and any such local government elector may make a copy thereof or on extract therefrom.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in this Section any such part of the minutes of proceedings of a river board as contains information with respect to any manufacturing process or trade secret obtained in the exercise of powers under this Act shall not be open to the inspection of a local government elector.

(3) In this Section, the expression "local government elector" means a person registered as a local government elector in the register of lectors in accordance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts —[Sir T. Dugdale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.58 p.m.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Would it be for the convenience of the House if we discussed this new Clause together with the next one on the Order Paper—(Attendance of representatives of the press at meetings of river boards.) I think they both cover the same point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That will be convenient.

Sir T. Dugdale: The purpose of this new Clause is to fill a gap which we believe exists in the machinery set up in the Bill for the establishment of river boards. During the discussion of this Bill in the Committee, it was agreed on all sides that, if these boards are to function in a smooth and efficient manner, it is of the greatest possible importance that as many people as possible living in the area of a river board should know about the activities of that board. River boards, as we envisage their composition and the area which they cover, will be rather different from the present local authorities, because they will cover the whole of the water-sheds from where the river rises in the hills to where it flows out to sea at


the mouth. There may be an entirely different set of circumstances, in the hills, where the river rises, from those in the plains.
5.0 p.m.
We believe that it is very important that the people who live in those areas should know as much about the activities of the boards as is convenient for the administration of the Act. We have given very careful consideration to this problem and we feel that, at any rate, the future river boards, when they are set up, should be in line with local authorities as they exist today. The present state of the law on this matter of meetings of local authorities is that local government electors, in any local authority area, are permitted to inspect the minutes of the meetings of that local authority, but not of its committees, on payment of a fee of is. This privilege is provided for under the Local Government Act, 1936.
The new Clause which I have moved on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends introduces this provision in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) also has on the Order Paper a new Clause which deals with the attendance of representatives of the Press at meetings of river boards. The present position, as we are advised, is that the Press are admitted to all meetings of a local authority—but not to meetings of its committees—unless they are excluded from a particular meeting by a resolution passed by the majority of the council members present at the meeting. This privilege is provided under the Local Authorities (Admission of Press to Meetings) Act, 1908. In this regard we are under the impression that the Clause put down in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon is not necessary, but we should like to have the assurance of the Minister that we are correct in this surmise; and in that case I do not think my hon. Friend will move the Clause which is down in his name.
When we were considering this point further we went very carefully into the recommendations of the Consultative Committee on Local Government and the interim report of that Committee, which was presided over by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, and we considered the advisability of even

going further than the provisions set out in this new Clause. Having reviewed the interim report we came to the conclusion that the right course for this House to adopt at this stage was to put the river board in precisely the same position as other local authorities throughout the country. The final sentence in this report reads:
What is now required, in the view of the Consultative Committee, is that every authority should take steps to review all its channels of communication with the public of the area and consider how these can be improved and extended.
We feel that should cover the whole field of local government authorities at the same time, and we feel the river boards will no doubt take this report into consideration when they are set up. This new Clause puts the river board in exactly the same position, both as regards the ratepayer and the admission of the Press, as that at present enjoyed by a local authority. We hope the Minister will see fit to accept this new Clause in the spirit in which it is moved.

Major Legge-Bourke: I hope the Minister will not only accept this new Clause but will emphasise the fact that the river board will be a local authority. I think there is some misunderstanding about that in the country districts, and I do not think it is always realised that the catchment boards are local authorities and rank as such. It seems to me that what goes for the rural district council and the urban district council should also go for the river boards, and should go, too, for the catchment boards at the present moment.
I would remind the Minister that in the third report of the Central Advisory Water Committee, paragraph 90, mention is made of safeguards, such as complaints being made by local authorities or by interested persons, and it is recommended that the Ministry should have power to hold an inquiry should these complaints be lodged. It was the intention of the Central Advisory Water Committee that there should be considerable safeguards and, obviously, if there are to be complaints, it is as well for those complaints to be fully informed and not the result merely of rash judgment, I believe that if the Minister could accept the new Clause it would be far more likely that complaints, if ever they are made, will


be real complaints and not merely trumped-up charges for which there is no evidence.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I can assure the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) that his assumption is correct and that the second new Clause to which he referred is not necessary, since that matter is already covered by the Bill as it stands. There is nothing in the Bill to exclude it from the 1908 Act; consequently, the 1908 Act automatically applies to this particular Measure. Turning to the first new Clause, it is one which I readily accept. It was never our intention that Local Government electors should not have permission to inspect the minutes of any river board if they felt so disposed to do. I welcome the new Clause on the Order Paper and gladly accept it.
Turning to the request of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that I should emphasise the point that river boards will become local authorities, I could not emphasise it too strongly and if at this moment I do not emphasise it as strongly as the hon. and gallant Member would desire, I shall be further emphasising it soon when a later Amendment is moved. These river boards will be very important bodies, affecting a wide variety of interests, and I hope all the constituents within the river boards' areas will recognise that the boards are a very important new local government in this country.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 2.— [Definition of river board areas and constitution of river boards.)

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 2, line 14 to leave out "three-fifths," and to insert "one-half."
I am afraid that the House now comes to more controversial issues; in fact, I think I am correct in saying that this is the only issue which divides the two sides of the House. The purpose of this Amendment is to restore the Bill to the form in which it originally came to this House from another place. During the prolonged debate we had on this point during the Committee stage, the Minister emphasised

that he and his Department were probably in a better position to know what was the right proportion for members of a river board than were Members of another place. We took the contrary view and although we were not successful in our arguments, having reviewed the whole position we are still of the opinion that the Bill would be improved if we could leave out three-fifths and insert one-half.
This deals with local authority representatives on a river board, and as the issue has been debated at great length on more than one occasion, I do not propose to weary the House this afternoon by going into all the detailed arguments again. I want to make my final appeal to the Minister, who in so many ways is a reasonable man, to see whether he cannot take his courage in both hands and have better administration of the river boards by accepting this Amendment. I ask him to do it on the grounds of flexibility of administration. This hidebound theory of administration seems to us on this side to be all wrong. The Amendment gives the Minister more freedom of choice and more discretion, and surely any Minister of the Crown should welcome an offer from the Opposition to have more discretion and freedom of choice in the selection of his river boards?
As the Bill is drafted—and this is a point I want to bring to the notice of the House—assuming that the river board consists of a maximum number of 40 members, the Minister's discretion will be limited to a maximum variation of two out of 40. That is all his discretion can be when he comes to decide on local government representation. That is the difference between 26 members appointed by local authorities, which is a maximum of two-thirds out of 40, and 24 local authority representatives, which is a minimum of three-fifths representation of local authorities.
In our Amendment, all we are giving the Minister—and we are literally giving it to him—is a discretion of his own free will of six instead of two. That does not seem to be a very great deal to ask of him. We attach considerable importance to it because of the representation of the other partners in these river boards—land drainage and fishery interests. Land drainage authorities in certain areas—and I do not propose to go again through the


detailed areas—are providing up to two-thirds of the revenue of certain catchment boards. I do not say that they are the majority. They are not; they are a minority; but they do exist. Under the Bill as it is at present drafted, they will not even get their two-fifths of the membership of the board.
5.15 p.m.
We must not forget the fishery interests. In our Debates in Committee the Minister conceded the point that it was probable that the fishery interests on any river board would be likely to have a minimum of three. Where the drainage interests are in the preponderance from the financial point of view, it will probably be in large rural areas, and there it is probable that, on the particular river boards, it would be advisable to have the greatest number of representatives of fishery interests. The drainage and fishery interests on that particular type of river board would be the two most important elements.
Yet under the Bill, tightly drawn as it is, the Minister has only a discretion for two. We want to give him discretion for six, to give him a present of four members, without compelling him to do anything. We say only, "We trust him and his judgment, but do let us force him to accede to a discretion of six instead of a discretion of two." Taking all these facts into account, it is, surely, foolish to suppose that adequate representation in accordance with contribution can be given to both land drainage and fishery interests if the Minister insists on refusing to accept the Amendment which I have moved.

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the Minister knows what my feelings are about this. I think, however, he is under the impression that I am looking at the matter simply from a fenman's point of view, and that I am inclined to grow web feet rather too fast. I hope he will realise that we have Yorkshire interests also at heart. This is not in any way an Amendment for local purposes. I do not know who it is that the Minister thinks is likely seriously to object to the Amendment, unless he is thinking of the county boroughs. I think he has over-estimated the objection of the county councils to it. I have here a letter from the Secretary of the County

Councils Association to the chairman of the Association of Drainage Authorities. In that letter he says that although he cannot go so far as to say that his Association have no objection to the Amendment, nevertheless,
I shall certainly let the Minister of Agriculture know that we do not propose to seek its alteration "—
that is, alteration of the Bill. They have no rooted objection sufficient to make them want to amend the Bill as it came to this House from another place. Nevertheless, the Minister has seen fit to amend it.
I can only suppose that the objection comes from the county boroughs. I am rather surprised to hear that the Minister thinks that that is a substantial case, because the county boroughs are assured of what is virtually a majority representation, with the Minister's representatives, who probably will be kindly disposed towards the county boroughs. I do not think they have anything to worry about. I realise that there are some county boroughs that have subscribed considerably to catchment boards, and I think that it is highly commendable that they have done so. On the other hand, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander, and we know that there are some drainage boards that have contributed largely to catchment boards. That applies not only to those in the Fens, although an outstanding example that I would mention happens to be one from the Fens. To the Witham and Steeping Rivers Catchment Board the internal drainage boards from 1943 to 1947 subscribed 67 per cent., 70 per cent., 70 per cent., 75 per cent., and 65 per cent. It seems to me that if there is a very strong case for saying that, because a county borough has subscribed more to a catchment board than any other interest, it should therefore get good representation, the same argument should apply to the internal drainage boards.
I am convinced myself that the Minister does not appreciate what effect this is going to have where there are considerable land drainage and fishery interests in the same area, because their representation has to be shared according to the proportion in the Bill, and the more that the one gets the less the other gets, and vice versa. Both interests are important. The Minister would be well advised, for the


happiness of some of these boards—I do not say of all of them—to accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. Williams: As the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. DUgdale) said, the arguments against the Amendment have been put forward at very great length at every stage of the Bill, and I think it would be tormenting the House to attempt to repeat them now. Since the river boards are to be important local authorities—I warn the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I emphasise that —administering functions directly or indirectly affecting a very wide variety of interests, I think it is essential that an effective majority of local authority members should be appointed to the boards. The Government are fully aware of the wide variety of circumstances amongst the boards, but that in no way affects the argument I advanced on Second Reading, and that I repeated, I think very effectively, in Committee, namely, that with a board of 40 members the drainage and fishery representatives would have a minimum of 13 members. They would have their 13 members if the contribution from the drainage authorities were very tiny.
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) asked, Who would object to this Amendment, who is the authority or body of authorities to object? The person who objects most profoundly is myself, because I am more anxious than the hon. and gallant Member, apparently, to give representation to drainage interests and fishery interests in those areas where their contribution to the exchequer of the river boards will be very small.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond generously and kindly wanted to place power in my hands which I myself do not wish to exercise, I want to remind him of the complaint that has been made when we have been considering other Measures, the complaint to the effect that power proposed to be given to Ministers may be all right for present Ministers, but not for others in the future, when there* has been a change of Ministers. Well, there may be a change in this instance. Therefore, I do not want this power thrust upon me. I should rather be modest, and be content with the power I have given myself in the Bill.
So long as the fishery and drainage interests retain 13 out of 40 members on a river board their specialist interests can be fully expressed and looked after. The Amendment, if accepted, would mean only an addition here or there of an odd two drainage members. I do not think that that can be justified, except on the ground of voting power. However, we have not thought of that; we have always thought, not of voting power, but of men or women coming together to do a fine piece of public work as a team, not as separate entities voting against each other. I would remind hon. Members that most of our very best drainage representatives are members of local authorities. Indeed, in my own county, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, where we have a first-class catchment board at present, the first chairman of the catchment board was a farmer who was a county councillor with first-class knowledge of drainage; his successor, now chairman of the catchment board, is a representative of a county borough, but he has a first-class knowledge of all drainage matters.
Therefore, apart altogether from the 13 guaranteed members for drainage and fishery interests, there will be on the catchment boards many local authority representatives who will also be a first-class addition to the specialist body representing fishery and drainage interests. I do not think I ought to be called upon to go over the whole of the arguments once again that were put so effectively before. Thanks to my compromising attitude in all things, and my generosity on occasion, I think we have a fairly balanced representation. It is a compromise that most have wanted. I think that if there had been no such thing as the Isle of Ely it would have been unanimously accepted. I have with sympathy and, I hope, with understanding reviewed the whole of the circumstances again. I regret that I have not found sufficient justification for accepting the Amendment. I hope the House will agree with me that we ought to stand by the very balanced compromise we have in the Bill.

Mr. York: It is really wrong of the Minister to cite Yorkshire as an example. He knows as well as I do that things are run so exceptionally well in that part of the country that it is difficult for the management of affairs in other


parts to be compared with the management of affairs in Yorkshire, about which he and I know a good deal. But, the Minister is not meeting the considerable amount of heart-burning going on in the Internal Drainage Boards Association. Even in such a progressive and well run county as Yorkshire—although the Isle of Ely is more seriously affected—where things have run very smoothly for many years, even there, the internal drainage boards consider that the principle behind this amended Bill is wrong; and I do not think that the Minister has recognised or shown a sufficient degree of sympathy with their outlook. We admit fully the case of the county boroughs where they are providing a very large part of the money which is required. I cannot see why the county boroughs are not prepared to admit the same degree of justice to the internal drainage board in these minority of cases where the internal drainage board provide by far the largest amount of money.
5.30 p.m.
The Minister said that he had no thought of voting power in his mind when drafting the Bill. He might not have had, but someone had, and that thought alone was in their heads when they made representations to the Minister. I cannot but think, and my hon. Friends cannot but think, that the main reason why the Minister has had to stand so firm—and there has been no compromise from him on this Bill—is because the county boroughs refuse to allow any of their voting power to be in any way endangered. I do not believe that is at all necessary, and I believe that it works against the principle of flexibility which we all want to see in the Bill. I believe that far from cementing the co-operation between the towns and the rural areas in those parts of the country where drainage is the main burden, it will work in exactly the opposite direction. I regret that the Minister has remained so determined on this subject, as I believe that he is working inevitably against the interests of the drainage of the country. It is an interest of which he ought to be the chief guardian. I, therefore, very much regret the attitude which he has taken.

Mr. Harrison: I am quite sure that the county boroughs would be definitely against this Clause. I think that quite a number of the county

council authorities would also be against it. I cannot see the purpose behind the Amendment in view of the statements that were made by the mover and seconder of the first Amendment today. They primarily wish the river boards to be substantial local authorities. In view of that, I cannot imagine the purpose behind the Amendment. The county boroughs are quite willing, I believe, if I interpret their wishes correctly, to accept three-fifths, but I am quite sure that in their hearts they think that there ought to be more than a representation of three-fifths. In view of what hon. Members opposite have stated on the previous Amendment, that these river boards must be substantial local authorities, that really takes some understanding, and I think that the Minister is right to oppose this suggestion.

Mr. Berry: There seems to be some misconception of the functions of members of authorities of this character. If we interpret rightly the views of hon. Members opposite, they appear to be that when people are appointed to these bodies they are appointed as mere delegates of the bodies of which they are members, that they are mere delegates from drainage boards and county boroughs. Such an attitude is utterly contrary to the facts. I have been a member of several joint authorities. In one or two cases, I have been appointed by a substantial local authority, and I have never regarded myself as a mere delegate of that authority. On more than one occasion on the joint authority of which I have been a member, I have led the voting against my own appointing board. I believe that to be an individual is the proper position. There are people who think that Members of this House are mere delegates sent here to carry out the wishes of other people. That is utterly wrong. We are Members of this House, and in my submission members of river boards should be members of and elected from important local authorities.
I hope for the sake of the river boards that that will be recognised. I have no fear concerning the duties of the representatives of county boroughs or other local authorities on these river boards. The fear has been expressed in some quarters that these representatives would be prepared to condone the fouling of rivers by their own authorities. Such is


utterly contrary to my own experience. Only last Monday, I was "pulling the leg" of a member of an important county borough about the action he was going to take against his own authority as a member of a joint authority. While I can appreciate that the amour proper of some of the internal drainage boards is touched in this matter, and while it may be that the fishery interests would like to have more representation and while I know that another very important section

of our national life, which is not mentioned at all, ought' to be represented, nevertheless it seems to me that the variant principle is not one which would help the efficiency of these bodies, and I am glad the Minister is not agreeing to the Amendment.

Question put, "That 'three-fifths' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 222; Noes, 91.

Division No. 150.]
AYES.
[5.37 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Dodds, N. N.
McAdam, W.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
McAllister, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Dumpleton, C. W.
McGhee, H. G


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
McGovern, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwettty)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKinlay, A. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bacon, Miss A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Balfour, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mellish, R. J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Ewart, R.
Middleton, Mrs. L


Barton, C.
Fairhurst, F.
Mitchison, G. R.


Battley, J. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Monslow, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Fernyhough, E.
Moody, A. S.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Foot, M. M.
Morley, R.


Benson, G
Forman, J. C.
Morris, P. (Swansea W.)


Berry, H.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Mulvey, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gallacher, W.
Murray, J. D.


Blyton, W. R.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Natty, W.


Boardman, H.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nichol Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W
Gibbins, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bowen, R.
Gilzean, A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gtanville, J. E. (Consett)
Oldfield, W. H.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Oliver, G. H.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Orbach, M.


Bramall, E. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parkin, B. T.


Brown, George (Belper)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Guy, W H.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Pearl, T. F.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Burden, T. W.
Hardy, E. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Burke, W. A.
Harrison, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Reeves, J.


Byers, Frank
Herbison, Miss M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Callaghan, James
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Robens, A.


Chamberlain, R. A
House, G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Royle, C.


Cluse, W, S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Sargood, R.


Cobb, F. A.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Scollan, T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Collick, P.
Jeger,, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Collindridge, F
Jenkins, R. H.
Shurmer, P.


Collins, V. J.
Johnston, Douglas
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Jones, P. Astertey (Hitchin)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Keenan, W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Corlett, Dr. J
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawley, A.
Kinley, J.
Snow, J. W.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sorensen, R. W.


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leonard, W.
Steele, T.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Leslie, J. R.
Stross, Dr. B.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Levy, B. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S.W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G.
Symonds, A. L.


Diamond, J.
Lyne, A. W
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)




Taylor, Dr S. (Barnet)
Walkden, E.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Warbey, W. N
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Watkins, T. E
Willis, E.


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Watson, W. M
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Thurtle, Ernest
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Woodburn, A.


Tiffany, S.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Woods, G. S.


Timmons, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Titterington, M. F
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Tolley, L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Ungoed-Thomas, L
Wigg, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and




Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Raikes, H. V.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hutchison, Col. J, R, (Glasgow, C.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Nigel
Jeffreys, General Sir G
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R
Renton, D.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robinson, Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Scott, Lord W.


Butcher, H. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Spence, H. R.


Carson, E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Linstead, H. N
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lloyd,, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studholme, H. G.


Cooper-Key, E. M
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Low, A. R. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Teeling, William


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lytlelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Duthie, W. S.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon, A.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G Lloyd (P'ke)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Glyn, Sir R.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Grant, Lady
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
York, C


Grimston, R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.



Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harden, J. R. E.
Pitman, I. J.
Sir Arthur Young and


Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Major Conant.


Head, Brig. A. H
Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)

5.45 P.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, at the end, to insert:
Provided that where the Ministers after consultation with all the interests concerned are satisfied that an interest specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Subsection bears a risk exceptionally greater than that borne by any other of the interests represented on a River Board, they may by regulations so vary the representation of such interests as are specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this Subsection as to ensure a reasonable representation to that interest bearing the exceptional risk and provided that any such regulation shall be made upon an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
It may be that some hon. Members will see very little difference in this Amendment and the one we have just been discussing, but perhaps I may describe briefly its effect. Where the three Ministers concerned with this Bill came to the conclusion that an exceptional risk was borne by one of the interests mentioned in Clause 2 (2, b and c) the Minister could so alter the composition of that river

board as to ensure that the particular authority had a reasonably fair representation. This may be a solution of the Minister's difficulties in accepting our Amendment. I believe it can be, because he has been acting as a drainage authority trying to dam up an irrepressible current, so far as our Amendment is concerned, to put the Bill back into the original form in which it came to this House. We have failed to find one route to avoid that dam, and I hope this will be the solution, because it gives the Minister wide scope. On his own admission he has shown that he objects to putting the Clause back to its original form, and this should fit in nicely with that view in that it would be up to him largely as to whether or not any action was taken under this Amendment.
It is a permissive Amendment, and it is also subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The Minister has been most reluctant to take


undue power upon his own shoulders, or in any way to become a dictator of land drainage or river boards. We welcome that, and we realise that this Amendment gives him and his colleagues considerable powers, but we feel that by making it subject to an affirmative Resolution, there should be considerable Parliamentary safeguards, so that all interests, if they have any objection to take to any action of the Minister, can fully ventilate them in this House and in another place.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be prepared to accept this Amendment. I do not want an assurance that he will use the powers given under this Amendment because I hope it will not be necessary, but it will be useful to him in the event that his wishful thinking about the future of the river boards does not materialise. I am sure he is hoping for rather too much if he expects all river boards to work beautifully smoothly, and that no members appointed to them will tend to act as delegates. I agree with the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) that no member of a river board should be a delegate in any way but should realise that, once he becomes a member of that board he should serve the best interests of the river.
Let us face the fact, however, that there will be county councils or county borough councils who occasionally will tend to put on to a river board a person they know will never vote for any increase in the precept. It has happened in the past, and we have no doubt that it will happen again, although neither we nor the Minister want it to happen. In the event that it does happen, this Amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to put the matter right, and he may be glad of it in the days to come, to ensure that whereas an exceptional risk is borne by one interest which is not properly represented, he can so vary the composition of a board as to ensure that the interest is properly represented.

Mr. York: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a new and quite different approach to the problem we have been discussing recently, and I think the Minister will agree that it obviates the main objection he put forward while defending the Clause. If we accept risk as a major consideration in drainage matters, it fol-

lows that exceptional risk should have exceptional consideration. I am quite certain that as the Bill now stands, if it is applied in the catchment areas, the Minister or his successor will find coming into the open just those difficulties which we have been putting forward during the Committee stage of this Bill, if he so ties himself down by the inflexibility of this Clause no suitable variations are possible
Here we offer the Minister something which he ought to welcome, a suggestion which will give him that flexibility without altering any of the neatly balanced negotiations and agreements which he has achieved during the time the Bill has been under consideration. If the county boroughs are in any way nervous about what the Minister or some future Minister may do, then there is the additional safeguard that, before any Minister can make any variation, he has to come to the House with an affirmative Resolution. Hon. Members will know that that is a form of procedure which no Minister would care to adopt unless he had a cast-iron case.
We are only asking that in those cast-iron cases where exceptional risk has been proved, the Minister should allow himself the discretion, if he at that time decides that discretion is necessary, to come to the House and ask for powers to vary. This makes no alteration in the representation in the Bill, and it is on those grounds that I feel that county boroughs who were against altering the main fraction in the Clause will not have the same objection. I hope the Minister will give this Amendment a more sympathetic and reasonable answer than he gave to the last one.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I think this Amendment arises from a series of misunderstandings of the set-up and standing of the various bodies who will be on these river boards. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) talked as though a local authority has in this respect a precise interest on the board. The local authority is on the board as a social entity with a general interest in all the matters that are likely to arise and concern the river board during its deliberation. The drainage and fishery interests are there with a specialised interest in certain functions which the


river board needs to have, but it does not mean, because the fishery and the drainage people are thought to have a special interest in those two functions of the board, that we are then to assume that the local authority representatives have not an interest in those functions. The local authority representatives have a general interest in all the functions of the board, and the other people are there, not to measure their interest in the particular function, but because they can bring a special contribution to the board which we think we ought to have.
In this Bill we have tried to maintain a fair balance between, on the one hand, these local authorities with their general interest in all the functions, and the specialised interests with their interest in one or two functions. I am not quite sure whether I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but I thought he suggested that if the balance of membership is heavy in the interests of the local authorities, in the case where there is undue risk in one of the other functions, the local authorities might refuse to vote the necessary precept. May I make it clear that his Amendment would do nothing about that, since it is the local authority representation on the board which will decide by its vote the size of the precept that is to be levied for the purpose of raising money for the functions?

Major Legge-Bourke: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that where internal drainage boards are contributing most, and a decision is taken as a result of the set-up in the Bill which is absolutely detrimental to the interests of land drainage, the internal drainage runs exceptional risk in such a case?

Mr. Brown: It is to me quite inconceivable that one of these river boards will take a decision completely detrimental to land drainage. If they do, however, they will be abrogating one of their main functions, and we must assume that these substantial local authorities will act in a reasonable way. Unduly weighting the representation of one of the specialised interests would not prevent that happening; indeed, it might have the opposite effect. I have used this argument before in our deliberations on this principle. Giving what was thought by the local authorities, who are providing so much of the money, to be undue weighting of membership to one of the specialised interests,

might well lead to such a lack of harmony, such a sense of grievance, that much more risk would be run of getting decisions taken about drainage which would not be as helpful as we would like, than if we leave the Clause as it is.
6.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) said we might need additional members from the specialist interests to make sure that those interests were adequately catered for. We on this side of the House do not believe that. We believe what was said by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) that the people who go on to these boards, from whatever interest they are drawn, will have a definite interest in all the functions of the board. Merely to add to the representation of any particular interest will not mean that the work of the board in respect of that interest will be done any better. Those who argue that the greater the risk, the greater the contribution or representation, must face the other half of their own argument: presumably the smaller the risk the smaller the representation. We have taken the view that, because of the great specialist contribution which they can make, there should be an irreducible minimum of representation from the fishery and drainage interests. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been loud in their anxieties that fishery interests in particular are never reduced below the provisions made for them in the Bill. If this argument were to be admitted it might well be difficult in certain areas to maintain the representation we have given to these two specialist interests. As far as fisheries are concerned there should not be any whittling down.
We are achieving nothing in pursuing the argument that the greater the risk, the greater the representation. We have tried to hold a balance with the local authority people who will provide so much of the committee and who will take a general interest in all the functions of the board. At the same time they will maintain a fair representation for the specialist interests who can bring a constructive contribution to the two functions of the board. I hope that, in view of what I have said, the House will not press this Amendment. We are unable to accept it; we believe it would be wrong to do so and that it might even be harmful if the issue were forced to a Division.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: The Parliamentary Secretary has made an excellent speech, but it was really about an Amendment which has already been considered. The desire of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) is to give the Minister a permissive power to alter the representation if it does not work properly. He is not concerned whether the Minister should appoint one half, or whether the local authority should have a three-fifths membership, of the board. That has already been decided. He wants to ensure that if the scheme does not work properly or smoothly—if, for instance, the drainage boards do not have a fair representation —the Minister has power to make alteration after coming before Parliament with an affirmative Resolution. That is not a big concession to make since the previous Amendment was defeated. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment I hope that reasons will be given why the Minister does not want this permissive power or does not think he should have it.

Sir T. Dugdale: I support entirely the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) and the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York). On the grounds of flexibility we want the Minister to have the best river board in every case. This is an entirely new

departure in local government administration; a river board may well be a very powerful local government body centred in a particular rural or urban area covering the length of a river. When the Minister sets up the river boards, we want them to comprise the best possible representation. For this reason we want to give the Minister more flexibility. I shall ask my hon. Friends to go into the Division Lobby in support of the Amendment because we are so certain that flexibility of administration is a very important part of the whole structure of the river boards.

Mr. Baldwin: I wish to support what has been said on this side of the House. In speaking on the previous Amendment the Minister said that he did not want to be totalitarian, but that is how he is acting in not giving way to this reasonable Amendment. We know of the hopes expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary and the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Mr. Berry) that the members of the Boards will be delegates and will act in a certain way. That may be so; but, equally, it may not be so. We are asking only for something in the way of a compromise which I should have thought the Minister could accept.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 239.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, to leave out "having regard," and to insert:
and shall, as nearly as may be, be in proportion.
This Amendment is designed to substitute a more precise wording for the permissive wording at present in the Bill. I suggest that the Minister should look at this Amendment very closely, because the words we propose secure without any doubt whatever that the representation of the county boroughs and the county councils shall be on the basis of the moneys contributed. I suggest that the Minister should receive this recommendation favourably, and with brevity I am moving it.

Mr. Deer: I beg to second the Amendment.
I should like to imitate the brevity of my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison). I merely point out that this is an alteration which will remove a great deal of the anxiety which the county boroughs have felt in the past, when they had to pay large proportions of the money and received very little representation in comparison with other local authorities. We ought to be knocking at an open door on this matter.

Mr. G. Brown: This is a case where instead of being urged to take greater flexibility, my right hon. Friend is being urged to adopt more rigidity. I should like to tell my hon. Friends that they are, in fact, knocking at an open door. The intention which my right hon. Friend has in this matter, which is clearly envisaged in the wording we have put in the Bill, is that representation in these cases shall, in fact, follow the financial contribution of the various authorities. The fear which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Deer) expressed, about some of the authorities providing the greater part of the money and having little representation will not happen under the present wording of the Clause. My right hon. Friend would like to accept the Amendment, which has been pressed with such commendable brevity. We have examined it very carefully, but the difficulty is if we lost the slight degree of flexibility which the present wording gives us, it is possible to envisage a situation in which we would be prevented from doing something in the way of repre-

sentation, which would put the individual authority in the position which my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln has in mind.
Apart from other considerations, we should run into trouble with fractions of representation. "Having regard" seems to us to be a form of words which most nearly meets the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham, and at the same time affords to the Minister sufficient flexibility for avoiding getting into difficulties. My hon. Friends are here on a good point, but we think that they would be well advised to leave the matter as it is. We feel that the point which they have in mind is covered, and I hope they will accept my assurance that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend to act in accordance with the principle laid down in the Clause. In those circumstances I suggest that they withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Turton: I am very worried by the words the Parliamentary Secretary has used on this Amendment. It is made clear that what the Minister intends to do under this Bill is to see that urban interests get undue weightage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I will now explain what I mean by that. In 1930, the last time when we were plagued with a Socialist Government, Lord Noel Buxton and Lord Addison brought in a Land Drainage Bill. That gave far more weightage to urban and rural areas and the county boroughs could not have more than 50 per cent, representation.

Mr. T. Williams: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) not on the wrong Amendment? Surely he is speaking to the previous Amendment.

Mr. Turton: If the Minister would listen to what I am saying instead of being unduly touchy when reminded of his illustrious predecessors, it would be better for the progress of the Debate. We have got the position that instead of having this 50 per cent., the county boroughs are to have a proportion in representation provided it is actuarily correct. That means that on a river board, where the river for the greater part goes through a poor county but where there are one or two rich county boroughs, they are to have undue representation. I


hope the Minister will construe the words "having regard" rather differently. I want him to have regard to the estimated amount of the contributions to be paid and also to other relevant factors. I should have thought that that would have been the way to approach the matter. As it is, in the words of the Parliamentary Secretary, although this Amendment is being rejected the sense of it is being accepted, and it is a dangerous sense.

Mr. York: The point which makes me intervene is that raised by the Parliamentary Secretary that representation shall, in fact, follow the amount of contribution. If I understood his argument aright, it seems to me to be very little short of being hypocritical to advance that argument on this Amendment when he was opposing us for advancing the same argument on a former Amendment. On the former Amendment we were discussing the risk, the amount of contribution and perhaps some other things which were advanced by us as reasons for weighting the catchment boards in a certain proportion. Now we come to an Amendment put forward by county borough representatives, and we find the Government accepting that argument. Although they are not expressly providing for it in the Bill, they are going to use the weight of contributions to assess the amount of representation. Are the Government satisfied with that? They do not seem to have made up their minds about this, and if it is the case that they are going to use the weight of their contribution as between the county boroughs and the county councils, why do they refuse to accept the weight of contributions in the case of these internal drainage boards, which have a far higher amount of contributions to the catchment board than either the county council or the county borough?

Mr. T. Williams: I can answer the hon. Gentleman very simply. There are 18 catchment boards where the drainage authorities do not make any contribution at all, and still we give them and the fishery interests at least 13 representatives.

Mr. York: The Minister has missed my point. The point I was making was, where the internal drainage board has a greater proportion than the county council or the county borough why is there

no weight there? Why does the Minister merely defend the case where a private board does not contribute at all? That is no answer to my case. We have already said we are willing to give the Minister that side of the case. He has not made his case either on this Amendment or on the former Amendment.

Mr. Harrison: In view of the assurance which has been given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

DOMESTIC COAL ALLOWANCES

7.35 P.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Direction, dated 23rd April, 1948, entitled the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, General Direction (Restriction of Supplies) No. 17 (S.I., 1948, No. 833), a copy of which was presented on 26th April, be annulled.
This general direction is one of a number of general directions made under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943. These general directions affect all controlled premises, and controlled premises, as defined in the principal order, are all premises, excepting only those industrial premises, whose basic consumption, as defined in that order, exceeded 100 tons a year. It has been customary, since the war, to make an annual general direction prescribing the overall maximum amount of fuel which could be supplied to controlled premises. It is interesting to note that this general direction is substantially a repetition of the previous general directions which have been made anually in April since April, 1945.
It seems rather surprising that there has been no variation since April, 1945, in the overall maximum amounts of fuel which could be supplied to controlled premises. The amounts differ according to the locality. In the Midlands, North and Scotland, 50 cwt. of coal and 40 cwt. of coke are the maximum amounts which can be supplied in any one year to any particular controlled premises. In the South of England, the East and South-West, only 34 cwt. of coal and 40 cwt. of coke may be supplied. These overall


maximum amounts have remained fixed ever since April, 1945, with one very slight exception. In 1947, the maximum permissible amount of coke was reduced by five cwt. It is rather astonishing that, in the three years after the war, the fuel ration for all ordinary households has remained unchanged. It is characteristic of the stagnation into which this Government has brought the country.
Last winter was famously mild, and it was of great assistance in helping to build up stocks. Having regard to the stocks which have been accumulated, it is high time that the allowances were increased. It may well be that, thanks to the mild winter, there was no exceptional measure of suffering through cold, but it must not be forgotten that many people are entirely dependent on coal for cooking and hot water and, whatever the weather may be like, their demands for those purposes remain virtually unaffected. If we have a severe winter there will undoubtedly be grave suffering through cold.
I think the experience of the winter before last should be a warning to the Government. They were found completely unprepared at that time and grave dislocation and hardship ensued. They ought to proceed on the assumption that next winter will be equally severe. They ought to be on the safe side, and not expose the unfortunate householder to the risk of grave hardship. It will be remembered how many households were afflicted with burst pipes which it was difficult to have repaired and that great wastage was consequent upon that. Surely this is an appropriate time to review that position —coming, as it does after a mild winter when there has been a chance of building up stocks. This order ought not automatically to repeat the figures which have appeared in previous Directions. It seems to have become a habit with the Government to go on prescribing an overall maximum of 50 cwt. of coal for the more northern parts of the country and 34 cwt. for the more southern parts. There should be an explanation from the Government why these precise figures are repeated.
My objection to this order is also because of its rigidity. Premises receive a certain fixed allowance, irrespective of the number of rooms or the number of people occupying those premises. The allowance takes no account whatever of

quality, and surely in this matter quantity cannot be dissociated from quality. People have had to pay for all sorts of inferior stuff; they have been supplied with very inferior stuff, which has had very little combustible value, and yet they have been unable to obtain an increase in their allowances.
The Minister has admitted that the quality supplied is often inferior and has excused that on the ground of shortage of cleaning plant at the pit head. I do not think it can be disputed that there have been masses of complaints about the quality of coal. I received a complaint from one of my constituents today in a letter from the hon. secretary of the Sutton Coldfield Housewives' League, in which she says:
I am sending you by parcel post on Wednesday next a sample taken from a delivery of coal made to one of our members.
I am sorry it has not arrived, because I might have hurled it across the House in support of my argument. The letter continues:
This member has an elderly husband and is in rather poor circumstances, so it seems to us doubly hard for her to have to pay for absolute rubbish. As you know, we have made frequent complaints about the quality of the coal at the present day to the Minister of Fuel and Power through you, but the quality seems to be getting worse instead of better.
Letters of that sort are received frequently by hon. Members, and I am sure they reflect the great discontent in the country at the quality of the coal which is supplied.
Another point is that the Minister has recently agreed that a sub-tenant should count his quarters as separate premises for the purposes of the allocation of coal, conditional upon there being not less than two persons in the sub-tenanted premises. Why should it be necessary for there to be two persons? It takes just as much coal to keep one person warm as it takes to keep two warm. I think it is unreasonable that that stipulation should be made.
I criticise this order, again, in that it prescribes, as previous orders have done, that the overall maximum should be apportioned between the Summer and Winter periods, so that only a certain amount can be taken during the Summer and only a certain amount during the Winter. I cannot see the sense of that.


I should have thought it desirable that people should stock up as early in the fuel year as they possibly can, because small deliveries of fuel must be most uneconomic and wasteful of transport resources. If people with storage capacity can stock up early it must make it easier to supply, during the Winter, those who have very little storage space.
The Minister made an order early this year saying that people who had not yet succeeded in obtaining their maximum allowance might take what would have been due to them during the Summer up to the end of April. Why should the carry-over have been permitted only during the last fuel year? Why should that carry-over not continue? Why should not, in fact, the maximum overall allowance be cumulative and be satisfied as soon as it can be satisfied? It seems absurd that these periods should be kept in their watertight compartments, and that people should be allowed to obtain only a certain amount in the Summer and a certain amount in the Winter, within the total overall maximum in the year. Surely, if they have not obtained the total they are allowed, they should be able to get it later on, whether in that particular period, or that particular year, or not. An overall maximum allowance should definitely be cumulative, irrespective of period of time.
A very serious grievance is the difficulty which people have in transferring their registration from one merchant to another, because very often they may find the quality of coal from a merchant is not what they desire. I say that they should be allowed to transfer to another merchant if they think they can thus obtain better service or better quality. What is the Minister's reason for making it so difficult to transfer a registration? All sorts of permits and licences have to be obtained. Why cannot people transfer at will from one merchant to another? The Ministry of Food has agreed to permit milk registrations to be changed; why cannot the Ministry of Fuel similarly agree about coal?
I was rather surprised the other day when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) said:
We can give no guarantee that delivery of the maximum permitted quantity will

everywhere be possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1948; Vol. 449, c. 1999.]
That is a most astonishing statement. Surely it is not disputed that stocks at the moment are quite adequate? Why cannot the Ministry at least guarantee that the maximum allowance will be available? Do the Ministry anticipate that stocks are likely to be inadequate? Why not say definitely that in all circumstances the maximum allowance will be supplied? I complain that the maximum allowance is not nearly large enough. Surely, the small amount that people are entitled to should be supplied to them as of right.
I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what plans the Ministry have made for next winter, supposing we have another very severe winter. Have they made plans, or are they going to leave everything to chance, and gamble again, as they did the winter before last? The public have a right to know what the Ministry have in mind, because the allowances provided in this general direction will at best be only very poor allowances. If we have a severe winter, what steps will the Ministry take to protect people from the cold? I have an uncomfortable feeling that the Ministry are not making plans, that they are marking time, that they are accumulating stocks as much as they can, and that their policy is going to be influenced, not primarily by the needs of the community, but very largely by the political situation. As with other commodities, they are hoping to accumulate coal so that they can release larger quantities and increase the allowances as the time of the next General Election approaches.

Mr. Follick: Very good strategy.

Sir J. Mellor: The Parliamentary Secretary regards my suggestion with amusement.

Mr. Julius Silverman: We all do.

Sir J. Mellor: I hope that when the hon. Gentleman replies he will say what the Government plans are and rebut my suggestion, but unless he does I shall hold to my suggestion that the policy of the Government, not only in fuel but in other stocks as well, is to accumulate stocks so that they will be in a favourable position,


when they decide to go to the country, to release stocks and then claim all possible credit for providing more fuel and other commodities. That, I believe, is the only plan they have. So I consider that this order is profoundly unsatisfactory, that it is very ungenerous, that it will inflict unnecessary hardships, especially if we should have a severe winter, and that it should be annulled.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that all hon. Members on all sides will feel that a very considerable public service has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) in enabling this matter to be debated. I think I should begin by offering an expression of sympathy to the Parliamentary Secretary. I understand he has been somewhat busily engaged elsewhere, and I think it is rather hard lines on him that we should have to deal with a matter of this importance when he cannot possibly be feeling at his best. When I first saw the Home Secretary sitting beside him, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had come in to sustain him in the battle, rather as Aaron sustained Moses on a former occasion. When my hon. Friend referred to throwing stones across the Floor of the House, I thought that perhaps that provided a reason for the Home Secretary to be there.
I propose to examine this order on its merits for a few moments. In its basic form it may be a repetition of others. I confess quite frankly that I have not had time to review all the orders which have gone before it: one has a sufficient task in trying to keep up to date with the new productions. The first two matters I wish to raise are, I admit, only small matters of drafting. I observe that in paragraph 1 of this direction there is the phrase "furnished or acquired." I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the House what exactly is the difference between the two expressions. For example, how can coal be "furnished" without its being "acquired"? I think one is entitled to know, in scrutinising this matter, what was the purpose of the draftsman in drafting the order in that form.
The second drafting matter with which I want the Parliamentary Secretary to deal

is that of the use of the term "actual consumption." The term is used on two occasions, in the first paragraph and in the second paragraph. Then, for some unknown reason, the word "consumption" is used in paragraph 3 (2), the word "actual" being missed out. It may seem a small point, but I do think it is one about which we are entitled to have some explanation. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) will also take an interest in this accurate and definite use of the English language.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I can see a clear distinction between the words "furnished" and "acquired." Coal may be "furnished" from our own mines, whereas coal "acquired" may quite probably be coal which is purchased.

Mr. Lloyd: I thought the position of the Government at the present time was that they were no longer acquiring coal from overseas.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: That may be the policy, but that is my construction.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman has given his construction. I have no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary will be appropriately fortified thereby. However, I am certain the House will welcome a re-statement of the fact that it is not proposed to acquire more coal from overseas. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his characteristic manner, has come to the assistance of the House about the meaning of the phrase "furnished or acquired," but has not yet vouchsafed an opinion on the term "actual consumption." I cannot see how it is possible to have consumption which is not actual, but if there is any purpose in using the phrase "actual consumption," why is it not used also in paragraph 3 (2) as well as in the first two paragraphs? These are minor points, but I should like to have some gratification of my curiosity why these phrases are so used.
The substantive points to be made in regard to this direction are these. First, what is the point of putting in again this expression "whether or not for a consideration"? I understand that it means that if one member of a family takes along to another member of a family a bag of coal, because the former member of the


family has not used all his ration or allowance, he is committing an offence. Why should that be so? Is there any real reason why that provision should continue? That is the meaning and effect of the reservation in brackets in the direction. I suggest to the House that it is pure nonsense that we should continue to have that sort of restriction upon ordinary individual liberty. I have known of cases in which a person with a small house has tried to help a member of the family with a big house, by taking along to the big house a portion of his coal allowance. Why should that be illegal?
The next matter is that of quality. I am not going to deal with the question of quantity because my hon. Friend has dealt with that. With regard to quality, it seems to me that an important comment to be made upon this order is that it is completely rigid in regard to the quality of the coal which can be supplied. In my constituency I have 116,000 electors, and I am continually being bombarded with complaints about the quality of the coal that is being supplied in that region. They are justified. I give the Parliamentary Secretary full credit for one fact. In one case I have succeeded in securing from him a rebate of 6s. 11d. for one of my constituents. I express appropriate gratitude for that fact.
With regard to the great majority of the complaints put forward, there has been no rebate allowance. One is in this position. One has to advise constituents that the ordinary rules of the law of contract apply, and that when they are provided with coal of poor quality they can proceed against their coal merchant, and the coal merchant, in turn, can proceed against the regional board, or whoever it may be. If the coal merchant is put in that position of having to take legal proceedings against the appropriate authority, it obviously prejudices his chances in the future. The customer is unwilling to put that sort of pressure on the merchant, and the merchant is naturally unwilling to have trouble with his sole source of supply. I seriously suggest to the Minister that there is unnecessary rigidity being exercised by the fuel overseers or whoever the appropriate persons may be. I was told within the last hour of a case which happened in the Lewisham district where the fuel overseer told a complaining customer that he could not do anything about the quality

of coal he had supplied. That is quite wrong.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, in his last speech when moving the Third Reading of the Bill which has just received the approval of the House, said "Labour gets things done." One thing which they do not seem to succeed in getting done is convincing the people of this country that stone burns as well as coal I suggest that in this order there should have been some reservation with regard to quality. Quite recently I had left in my house a large parcel containing stone and slate. I sent it on to the Minister, without, I regret to say, receiving any acknowledgment from him of the sample that had been left upon me. Although one may laugh about this matter, it is in fact a very real problem.
I am not blaming the Minister for this fact, because we all know that through lack of washing and cleaning facilities we have in the present circumstances more stone with our coal than is ordinarily the case; but the fact is that consumers are getting a great deal of stone in their coal. I do not know if it has any political significance, but my constituency appears to be as bad as anywhere else in that regard. I think that a more liberal instruction could be given to the fuel overseers about the way in which they should deal with that matter. I criticise this order on the ground that there is complete rigidity of the supply that can be given and there is no question of a rebate or extra allowance if coal is of poor quality. What matters to the average householder is the calorific value of the coal. If the calorific value is very poor, I suggest that it should be supplemented in quantity.
My next point is of a similar nature. It is with regard to the rigidity of the period. I should have thought that the Minister would have been advised to take some power to vary the Winter period and the Summer period. Even under Socialism, it does not seem to be possible to have complete command of the weather in this country, and, under this order, if we have a very cold October there appears to be no power for the Minister to accelerate increased supplies. I do not think that even the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), who keeps up a running conversation sotto voce, can control that matter. That is the second point on which I


suggest that the Minister would have been wiser to have taken greater freedom of action.
The third matter I wish to raise is with regard to the size of the premises. It seems that there is no discretion at all for the authorities to deal with very large premises under this order. I should have thought that there were certain houses where, from the very nature of the thing, the present allowance is nothing like adequate for the purpose of heating. I should have thought that there should have been a reservation to the Minister to make powers to deal with those cases. It may be that in the present circumstances some system of control is still necessary, but the criticism that I make of this order is that it is a very clear example of over-control.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not want to make this discussion a lawyers' holiday, but the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn-Lloyd) appeared to base one of his main objections to this order upon certain words which are used in it. The words which he referred to were "furnish or acquired," and also the word "consumption." I have been looking at the order, and, so far as I can see, its object is to create an offence if the order is not observed. That offence, of course, is one which concerns two people. It concerns the person who supplies the coal and also the person who acquires the coal, and that is why the two expressions are used "furnished or acquired."
If we only used the word "acquired," then the only charge one could bring would be against the consumer who had acquired the coal for purposes in contravention of the order. It is also essential that one should be able to deal with the supplier, the person who supplies the coal, and in order to do that it is essential to use the word "furnish," because that is an apt expression which would apply to the supplier, and, in that way, we get a fair and balanced situation in which both parties—the party supplying and the person consuming—who break this order are amenable to the law. I think that is perfectly clear. I am quite sure that now that the hon. and learned Member for Wirral has heard what I have said, he accepts it.
The other words about which there seems to have been some obscurity are "actual consumption" and they are equally clear. What they mean is perfectly plain in the text of the order itself. "Consumption" means consumption, and it means that the person who supplies or acquires the coal has supplied or acquired it for the purpose of actual consumption. The order goes on to say:
in any controlled premises
That is to say, it earmarks the locality where the consumption is to occur, and it goes on to qualify the matter beyond any doubt, for it says:
and not for resale, during the current period.
I should have thought that as a matter of construction between lawyer and lawyer that renders the wording of that particular paragraph quite clear. Of course, these words occur throughout the order in various paragraphs, and in each paragraph they have exactly the same construction.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am greatly indebted for the very clear explanation given by the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels). Can he explain why, on page 2 of this order, the word "actual" is missed out, and will he also say when consumption is not actual?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It is quite obvious, because it is not there. If one takes the text of the order and the context of the construction, it is perfectly clear that where the word "consumption" is used, it gets its dictionary from the earlier expression and it means "actual consumption."

Mr. Lloyd: Then may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman why, the second time it is used, in paragraph 2, the words "actual consumption" are repeated, whereas the third time "actual" is not used?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The third time it is so well known what the word "consumption" means that it is unnecessary to use it again. It may be purely a slip, but whether it is a slip or not, it is perfectly clear from the context that "consumption" means exactly the same as "actual consumption." That seems to be the gravamen of the objection which the hon. and learned Member has raised, and now that has been cleared up, there seems to


be no reason why the time of the House should be taken up any further with this order.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Lambert: I have listened with great care to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) but I am more confused than ever. I am not a lawyer and I shall not try to emulate his legal arguments, but I would like to say how grateful I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) for raising this matter tonight. During the past year we have seen in the papers and elsewhere that more and more coal is being produced, and my constituents expected to have an increase in their allocation of coal during the coming year. It is with considerable disappointment that they find that the ration is only to be maintained at the scale of the last three or four years.
It is particularly difficult for people in country districts to manage on the ration because, more often than not, they have no other form of heating in their house, and not only have they to heat the house but do the cooking as well, and the ration does not last the full period. The position is made even more difficult because the quality of the coal is extremely poor. Many people tell me that they get no less than 25 per cent, dirt and slate in the coal, which means that instead of getting two tons a year, they get one and three quarter tons. Two old age pensioners in a small town in my constituency find that they require at least one cwt. a week, or 2 tons 12 cwts. a year. The husband is 87 and the wife is 84. They find the greatest difficulty in filling in the necessary forms to get the coal, with the result that for a portion of the time they have to remain cold.
Another complaint is that one cannot get the type of fuel one orders. Many farmers have put in fuel saving stoves which require anthracite, and when they ask for anthracite, they are told that only coke is available. Coke does not burn so economically and it puts a great deal more work on the farmer's wife, because the stove needs more attention if the wrong sort of fuel is used. Again, there is considerable discontent in a rural constituency because the farm workers find, if they are short of coal, that they have to buy wood, and they hear that the miners get extra coal. I should be

interested to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary how much coal a miner gets a year. It is, I believe, considerably more than the prevailing ration.

Mr. Shurmer: Does not the shop keeper have the best goods from his shop?

Mr. Lambert: I am grateful for the interruption because what makes the farmer and farm worker particularly enraged in Devonshire—a county renowned for producing the best beef in the world—

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No, Scottish beef is the best.

Mr. Lambert: Possibly Scottish beef is nearly as good, but I maintain that Devon beef is really the best.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I find nothing in the order about beef.

Mr. Lambert: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy. Speaker, I was merely saying that Devon produced fine beef in order to—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not want any county antagonisms to be developed.

Mr. Lambert: Then may I put it this way: In agricultural areas that produce good beef—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What about coal?

Mr. Lambert: —the beef is often, especially in Devonshire, sent to mining districts. The farm worker who is responsible for the production of this good beef sees it go to other workers while he gets beef of poor quality—

Mr. Shurmer: The farmers keep the best.

Mr. Lambert: —which causes even greater discontent. I hope that this Debate will have the effect of increasing the ration.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but hearing the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) and the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) has brought me to my feet. The question is whether we are to continue with a ration and use all the available coal


for export to bring in raw materials and the food and, at the same time, maintain our industries in full production, or whether we should increase the ration and thereby reduce the export of coal by that figure. Stocks are accumulating, and it is essential that stocks should accumulate so that, if a severe winter comes, we shall be able to maintain the industries of this country in full employment and not face what we faced last year, when factories had to close down due to shortage of stocks.
Therefore, I suggest that the Government are wise in again fixing the amount, leaving stocks available, and also increasing our commitment of 13 million tons to a minimum of 16 million tons this year to help the country win the fight of the gap. I put it to the House that the Prayer may be motivated by a meeting which has taken place elsewhere. Another point is that a target of 211 million tons is fixed for the mining industry this year. I speak as one who has spent 32 years in the pit, and I say frankly that 211 million tons from pit and opencast coal this year is a formidable figure for the miners to attain.

Lord William Scott: Is that coal, or what we get now, which is coal and stone?

Mr. Blyton: I will answer the question about quality if the hon. Member will wait. If 211 million tons are attained, we shall be able to get by export the extra raw materials that we need. It is such a formidable figure that the manpower problem is again rearing its ugly head in the mining industry. If we are to build up a bigger export trade people must recognise that their supplies are limited to the present quantities not because we like to keep them at this figure, but because it is essential, if we are to get the maximum food and raw material to keep our people in employment, to get the largest possible export of coal this year.
A lot has been said about the quality of coal. Under private enterprise this was always a burning question. One would think that complaints of the quality of coal have arisen only since the National Coal Board took over the pits. There have always been complaints, especially in the days of private enterprise. We

cannot argue about increasing mechanisation and at the same time expect to get better quality coal when private enterprise, in the development of mechanisation, failed to build the washeries for mechanised mining.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I particularly did not mention private or public enterprise. I was not blaming anyone. I only gave reasons, including the lack of facilities, and suggested that where there is bad coal an allowance should be made. That is quite a different story.

Mr. Blyton: That issue was not raised by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor). I listened attentively to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) but he did not say what he now suggests he said. Unless we build sufficient washeries in our pits and have intensive mechanisation, the problem will be difficult for years to come. We cannot avoid that issue. We have gone from higher seams to lower seams. They are dirty and that is bound to affect the quality of the coal.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. Member. He is now getting on to a discussion of general coal matters. We must deal with what is contained in the order.

Mr. Blyton: I was trying to explain the question of quality which has arisen tonight and I am speaking of these technical matters in their relation to mining. I shall, however, accede to that request.

Sir J. Mellor: What I said was that the Minister had admitted that the quality was inferior because of a lack of cleaning plant. I did not go into the question of whether the cause could have been removed.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must, however, point out to hon. Members that the order deals not with the quality but with the quantity of coal.

Sir J. Mellor: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. With great respect, I do not think one can dissociate quality from quantity in this matter. If there is a maximum allowance, the combustibility of the fuel supply must be closely related to the adequacy of the quantity.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can understand the point of Order which the hon. Member has made, but this order deals with quantity. I admit that in passing a reference can be made to quality, but that is not the burden of the Debate.

Mr. Blyton: I accept the Ruling. I got up only to challenge the view of the Opposition.
Another question which has been raised is the amount of coal which miners receive. If any hon. Member would like to go down a pit, where there are plenty of jobs to be done, he can get his free coal. It is not correct, however, to say that it is free.

Mr. Lambert: If the farm labourer goes down a pit he will not be able to do his proper job and there will be no food. We want both food and coal. The miner is getting a large quantity of coal but the farm labourer does not benefit in the same way.

Mr. Blyton: The farmer gets things that miners do not get. It is a reciprocal argument. The miner's coal is part of his wages. Not even the National Coal Board dared to stop the miner's coal; they did not even attempt to do so. Much has been shouted in Parliament because the coal position has been difficult and that the miner who has had his coal since 1879 should have it abolished in 1948. If ever the Opposition get back to power and tackle this question they will find themselves in difficult waters. The miner gets coal as part of his wages and conditions of employment. A miner sometimes has to work in water or in bad conditions. There may be a family with three sons, all going to work in multiple shifts at different times of the day; the miner's wife is up from morning till night getting them to work. As regards the miner's coal, the least said the soonest mended. The order should be continued in the interests of our export trade. It should be pointed out to the people that, because we are trying to build up maximum exports to obtain food and raw materials, this order must be maintained for the next 12 months.

8.28 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The House will have recognised the sincerity and interest of the

hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) whose knowledge of his subject began with his youth. No one would attempt to laugh at or to water down what he has said, but I do not think—I trust I will not be out of Order—he has got the proper comparison between farmworker and mineworker.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right. If he continues that line he will definitely be out of Order.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This order, coming after three years of Socialist Government, is a perfect example to the whole world of the abject failure of the nationalisation policy. I do not want to go into the many details which have already been touched upon by my hon. Friends, but I can emphasise from the northern kingdom that the question of controlled premises getting the same amount of coal, whether large or small, makes a very great deal of difference to the citizen. If I lived in a large house which unfortunately had been left to me, it would not make it any easier to run it to have only the same amount of coal as the person with a small house. More consideration should be given to the actual area of a house which a person occupies, and which he cannot leave, even if he wanted to, because there is nowhere else to go. This aspect should be reasonably considered by the Minister.
I am afraid that this miserable allowance of coal for the people will go on until the matter is put on a better footing. Nobody denies the immense importance to this country of the mining industry. Nobody has a greater admiration for the miner than I have. In my own regiment we had Fife miners always in large numbers. I have been associated with them for years and have no greater respect for anybody than I have for the Fife miner. I wish the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) were present to hear me say this, but I shall tell him as soon as I see him. I recall the General Election and remember clearly big posters saying, "Vote Labour and fill your scuttle." It did not say what the scuttle was to be filled with, but I presume that it meant coal. As the poet said,
For dead as last year's golden leaves
Are last year's golden promises.


I am afraid that has come to pass and this order is a confession of failure on the part of the Government. I most sincerely hope that the House will agree to annul the order and let something come out that will show the Government's policy to be working better than this order shows that it is.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: I do not want to enter into an agriculture versus mineralogy controversy, but to come to the problem before us. I want to ask the question—is there sufficient coal to provide an additional ration? That is a very difficult question to answer. I know that in North Staffordshire at the moment there is considerable over-stocking of coal slack. There are some factories which have 22 weeks' supply of coal and others with 10 to 12 weeks' supply. Power stations in the North Midlands have as much as nine weeks' supply. This is a very complicated question, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us some indication, if he is not too exhausted, of the overall position. It is a difficult position on which to reach a clear conclusion.
In other areas there may be a shortage of coal, but it seems to me that the speech made by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton), to which we all listened with interest and respect, indicated one thing, which was that the quality of coal, owing to mechanisation and a variety of other things, is at the moment below saleable quality. We have to face the fact that this country is finding it difficult now because of the price to export coal abroad. We have heard rumours of coal shipments being refused, but the position was brought home to me by information about one of the small coal mines in Scotland which was sending coal to Norway or Sweden—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is now quite out of Order. This Order is simply dealing with the distribution of coal in this, country.

Mr. Fraser: While bowing to your Ruling, Sir, may I say that the case I am trying to establish—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to attempt to establish any case, because it would be out of Order for him to do so.

Mr. Fraser: There seems to be a sufficiency of coal in this country to allow for an increase in the ration. The rate laid down in this order creates extreme difficulty and hardship for many people. On the other hand, there are cases where the coal cannot be disposed of, and if it cannot be disposed of by selling abroad, the domestic ration could be slightly increased by it. We have the announcement that 4,000 men are going out of employment in small mines. They were producing something like one million tons a year, and that coal could be used for giving a hundredweight or two to the householders of this country. It is not wonderful coal, but it is as good as the coal which is being produced by opencast mining.
In considering this order, let us remember that there may be certain areas where there are over-stocks of coal, while in others there may be less than is needed to meet local demands. However, the point which I hope the Minister will consider is the possibility of a better distribution, possibly on a regional basis. After all, the present order works on a regional basis. The northern householder gets more coal than does the southern householder. There is more coal available in Staffordshire than in other areas, and surely the local people should be allowed to have some of this extra coal. The Minister should look at this very carefully. There is the difficulty of selling our coal abroad because of the high price, and we have also the information that there is not sufficient washing machinery to produce first-rate coal; so that there is an inevitable building up of stocks, which could be distributed to our people on a regional basis. I urge the Minister to take some steps in order that our people may be warm in the difficult times that lie ahead.

8.38 p.m.

Colonel Wheatley: I am sorry that the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) is not present at the moment, because he made a suggestion that this Prayer was put down for some reason connected with something that is going on elsewhere, but that is not correct. I should like to assure the House that this Prayer was put down because of the importance of it to our constituents all over the country and as far as I am concerned particularly to the


people of Southern England. They feel that after all the promises that were given at the time of the General Election as to what they would get when the mines were nationalised, and the bright prospects which were held out after the war, they would be getting more coal than they are allowed under this order. They feel it is harsh that this order should keep the coal ration at the same figure as it has been for the past year. In the South of England the people feel that they are being unfairly treated, because of the discrimination between them and the people of Northern England. If a study is made of the isotherm charts, London appears to be quite a cold place whereas Blackpool away in the North has quite a moderate and even climate.
In the South we feel that there is no reason why those in the North should be given such a much greater supply. England is a comparatively small country, and there cannot be a very great variation of climate except on the hills. Presumably all the people in the North do not live on the hills. We in the South feel that there should not be this discrimination. We feel that more coal should be distributed to us in the South. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) mentioned the question of families living in the same house. I cannot believe that the Minister of Fuel and Power has taken into consideration the unfortunate and we hope abnormal housing conditions that prevail in this country at the present time. One often gets a case where there is a young wife, her husband and baby living with her parents who are old people. That young couple are not allowed to have their own supply of coal, because they are all of the same family. Young people do not want to spend their evenings at the same fire in the sitting room as the old people. They want their own fire in their own room. They ought to have their own quarters and their own quota of coal. After all, it is hard enough that they cannot have their own house which is the fault of the Government. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite jeer at that, but I would remind them that they are in power and that they have the Minister of Health. He does not sit on this side of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Minister of Health has nothing to do with this Order.

Colonel Wheatley: I will bow to your Ruling, but I will excuse myself by putting my digression down to the jeers of hon. Members on the other side. To continue this question, it is important that these families should get a share of the coal, and if they cannot have a house of their own and they have to share living quarters with their relatives, they should be given a coal ration. It is unfair, in view of the impossibility of them getting their own houses at the present time, that they should be made to share the same fire the whole time. We may get the reverse. We may get a grandmother sharing a house. She may not want to sit with the young people and the babies all the time; she probably wants her own fire. The Minister should consider these hardships and see if he can give his fuel overseers directions and power to deal more sympathetically with these cases.

Mr. Stubbs: On a point of Order. What have babies to do with coal?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order. The hon. and gallant Member for Eastern Dorset (Colonel Wheatley) is not quite out of Order but is getting very close to it.

Colonel Wheatley: I dare say that the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) realises that babies have to be kept warm and require more coal for the drying of their clothes than the hon. Member probably needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield also mentioned a very burning point, the fact that householders are not allowed to change their supplier. For various reasons the coal may not be of good quality or they may not be able to get their supplies. It is very difficult in some cases because the supplier has a monopoly and as long as he gets rid of his coal, he does not worry very much whether he delivers it to everybody who needs it.
The instances I have given are founded on cases with which I have had to deal. In many instances the local fuel overseer has done his best to help, but all the time he has to say that he cannot go outside the regulations. The Minister should consider these points and see if he can widen his regulations in order to help these deserving cases. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may jeer at them, but these are genuine cases which have been brought


to my notice. I would stress the importance which is attached to this Prayer by my constituents. They will look very intently at the Minister's reply.

8.43 p.m.

Lord William Scott: I want to address certain points to the Minister before he replies. He has doubtless read the Economic Survey for 1948. In paragraph 88 there appears the very interesting sentence which concludes:
And in a successful effort to hold back home consumption to a reasonable level.
When they read that sentence, a number of my constituents rather suspected that their coal ration would be reduced a little further, and they will be relieved if the Minister can tell us that in the year ahead their ration will not be reduced. Several other matters worry my constituents. The most important is that coal has to be conveyed a considerable distance by rail to my area in the South of Scotland. My constituents are unable to understand why in this third year of Socialist administration the Government should bother to cart about hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of tons of stone. A very large proportion of the coal brought to the six burghs on the Scottish border consists of stone, a far greater proportion than in the years before the Government controlled the mines. My constituents would like to know whether there is any chance of getting a bigger percentage of combustible coal and a smaller proportion of stone—

Mr. Stubbs: On a point of Order. Are we talking about quantities of coal or quality? Exactly what are we on?

Lord William Scott: The distribution of coal.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member will leave it to the Chair to control the Debate.

Lord William Scott: As there seems to be doubt, this order is entitled, "Coal Distribution… General Direction." Copies can be found outside if hon. Members need them. I am dealing with the distribution of coal, and not only the coal but the stone which goes with it. The coal and stone having been brought a considerable distance to these border towns, much of it has then to be carried a further distance into the long valleys which we

see in Scotland. It is an awful waste of road and rail transport with the amount of stone which is at present included. That is one of the matters—

Mr. Thomas Brown: One of the reasons there is an excessive amount of foreign substance in coal now is that only 42 per cent, of the screening plant is capable of cleaning coal because the coal owners neglected to bring it up-to-date.

Lord William Scott: In the days before 1939 the difficulty of the coal companies was to sell the excessive stocks of coal at the pitheads. It is only since the Government took control of the mines that there have been shortages of coal.

Mr. T. Brown: Mr. T. Brown rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot let this go any further. We are now getting on to something entirely outside the order. I would remind all hon. Members that we are dealing with quantity and not necessarily with quality.

Lord William Scott: It is "Coal Distribution…General Direction." Another point which worries a very great number of people throughout England as well as Scotland is whether anything of this restriction will be felt in Government offices. A large proportion of the population of Britain at one time or another every winter go into a Government office, and one of the first things they discover is that there is a great deal more warmth and apparently far more coal available in Government offices than in private houses. It would be interesting to know whether this restriction will be applied to Government-controlled offices. A lot of citizens would like to know that.
I would take the opportunity of saying what extraordinarily fine service the Ministry have had from their coal overseers in what must be very difficult work. I have nothing but the highest regard for the services which they have given. I cannot imagine how they have managed to give as much satisfaction as they have, when their allocations of coal have had to be the same whether to a large or a small family or to a large or a small house. It seems strange that when these new orders have come out, no attention should have been paid to an arrangement which seems hardly calculated to give satisfaction, or to the number of in-


dividuals who are supposed to benefit by any allocation of coal. The amount allocated is the same, irrespective of whether the number of individuals is a couple or 20.

8.52 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): You have been more than generous, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in permitting this discussion to range fairly widely. I will not trespass upon your generosity but will keep to the issue, which is the Prayer against this order. I would, however, express my thanks to the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who sympathised with me for having been in and around this House for the past 32 hours, engaged at this Box on oil, upstairs on gas and now tonight on coal.
I accept immediately the statement made by one of his hon. Friends, in answer to some very wicked allegations by one of my hon. Friends, that this Debate had been deliberately designed to keep me out of the Gas Committee tonight. I accept immediately from the hon. Gentleman that there was no such intention. I cannot say that my hon. Friends will accept the same attitude. I imagine that they will have noticed that because the Tory Party are standing tonight for the right of the people to be free, to take the lid off and let the coal go unrationed and unallocated, there have not been more than six or seven Members of that party on the benches opposite. They may have deduced from that fact that there was possibly something in the contention of my hon. Friend suggesting that the Prayer had been put down to keep me or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power from the Gas Committee this evening.
I assure hon. Members that I do not personally take that view. I know that they have come here in complete honesty and sincerity because they believe this order of ours to be a pernicious and bad order and one that ought to be prayed against. I have no doubt that they will take this matter to a Division. We recognise how strongly they feel about it.
Many questions have been raised by hon. Members opposite. I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) and

to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), who dealt so excellently with the legal points that were put up. We have listened to a legal argument between two hon. and learned Gentlemen and we have all benefited from it. I certainly have, and it has saved me having to deal with the same point. I would not presume to put myself on anything like so high a level as my hon. and learned Friend. Before I pass to the main theme I must say something about the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor).
He showed a pathetic eagerness to believe that childish delusion that the Government would be so wicked as to store up coal and then wait till within six months of a General Election. I do not think the Home Secretary, who has just come in, heard this argument suggesting that the Government would like to store up coal to within six months of a General Election and would then let it go free in order that they might win power for another five years. All I can say to the hon. Baronet is that this Government will win power next time on the strength of its achievements this time. I will go further and tell him that this Government never has and never will seek to bribe the electors. The trouble with hon. Members opposite is that for the first time in their political lives they have seen a Government come to power and carry out the promises it made at the General Election.

Sir J. Mellor: Sir J. Mellor rose—

Mr. Robens: I feel certain that if I were to proceed further along those lines that you would call me to Order. If I were to give way to the hon. Baronet I would start another row. I am most anxious to get back to the Gas Committee. I think I can satisfy the noble Lord who was so eager to come in just now. Provided that we are back again at about 10 o'clock, nothing will have gone awry. If he feels disposed to come along and help the Committee by his cheery disposition and the smiling face that he always shows to the House he might come along.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must indicate to the hon. Member that there is nothing in the order dealing with the Gas Committee.

Mr. Robens: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I thought that would have been


useful information for the hon. Baronet to know that we shall be sitting all night tonight and that he might like to come along. It would make it about 64 hours of still having had no sleep, but, coming fresh into it—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may have given us information, but it has nothing to do with the order.

Mr. Robens: I must apologise. I have been driven off the proper path, as you will have observed, by the way in which I have been maliciously attacked by hon. Members opposite when I sat so peacefully and did not interrupt a single time, but had to listen to most awful imputations against my Department. However, Mr. Deputy-Speaker—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member said that he had been driven off the proper path. I have not yet observed him on the path.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On a point of Order. If the hon. Member cannot regain the path may he be sent back to the gas-chamber as quickly as possible?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not for me to send anybody anywhere.

Mr. Robens: We are dealing with an order that my right hon. Friend signed and which is described as Order No. 17. I ought perhaps to describe this order. It is given under the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, and it prescribes the maximum quantities of coal fuels which may be supplied without licence to premises controlled under the order. The premises include all the domestic and non-industrial premises, and the smallest industrial premises. It may interest hon. Members to know that there are something like 15,250,000 premises, of which 14,500,000 are domestic premises. The maximum annual quantities for the house coal group are 50 cwt. in the northern regions, Wales and Scotland, and 34 cwt. in the southern regions. In all regions not more than 20 cwt. may be supplied during the summer period from May to October. Of course there is a second group, known as the boiler fuel group, for which a separate maximum of 40 cwt. of fuel can be supplied with not more than 20 cwt. in each half year. Fuels in this group are obtainable in addition to supplies in the house coal group.
The annual maximum for the house coal group is the same as for the past three years. For the second group the maximum is 5 cwt. more than last year, but I agree the year before it was 5 cwt. less, so we are back to the original position.
Consumers who have need of larger quantities than the general maxima should apply to the local fuel overseer, who has full power under Article 6 of the Coal Distribution Order to license additional supplies according to need. In the case of certain categories of consumers, such as consumers with larger domestic premises and those relying on solid fuel for heating as well as cooking, the overseers have been instructed as to the scale on which additional supplies should be licensed. To give one example, consumers in the north who rely on solid fuel for cooking and heating are licensed to receive an additional 10 cwt. during the year making a total of 60 cwt., and in the south they can receive an additional 20 cwt. making a total of 54 cwt.
Some comment has been made in relation to the increased production of coal and to the fact that we have not increased allowances for the domestic user here at home. My right hon. Friend spent some time on this matter when he spoke on the Budget proposals and dealt with some aspects of the Economic Survey. It may suffice to recall that in his speech of 13th April he pointed out that as a result of increased production and the fact that, consumption had been held down to about 3 per cent, more than last winter we were in the happy position of having very substantial stocks. I am glad to tell the House tonight the latest stock figure which at the end of April amounted to 13,098,000 tons—a great tribute to the industry and the miners who have produced it.
The Minister also informed the House that because of the high level of stocks he had given anxious consideration to the possibility of distributing more coal to the domestic consumer. As is made clear in the Economic Survey, however, the first call upon our coal supplies must be to meet industrial needs, and the second must be to take full advantage of the bargaining power of coal exports in trade negotiations. We must increase our exports as rapidly as possible in order to secure food and raw material to help the Chancellor of the Exchequer balance our foreign payments. The real question is


whether we can do better for the houswife by exporting coal and so getting bacon, meat, and eggs which she and all of us need even more than a few hundredweight of coal for domestic consumption.
In the result, it becomes clear that any substantial improvement in supplies to domestic consumers must depend upon the overall output from the pits. We have, therefore, fixed a domestic programme on a basis which should provide deliveries at approximately the same level as during the last coal year, after taking into account the expected increase in registrations arising from the building of new houses and the concession announced recently in allowing separate registration of all sub-tenant families of two or more persons. This programme allows for house coal disposals of approximately 30 million tons during the year, and that compares with from 29 million to 29½million tons during the three previous years. It may interest hon. Members to observe the figure for pre-war years which was 44 million tons, so that there is not a very wide margin between the present allocation for the domestic user and that which was available during the pre-war years.
What would happen if this Prayer to annul this order were carried?

Lord William Scott: Get a new one.

Mr. Robens: No, we should not get a new one at all. If this Prayer were annulled, coal would be allowed on the market without restriction—

Lord William Scott: Then bring in a better Bill.

Mr. Robens: —and it would depend upon the capacity of the people to pay as to who got the coal and who went without. I think the Government are right. Much as it may annoy hon. Members opposite, the Government are right in doing with coal what they do with all other goods in short supply; that is, to ensure, in so far as is humanly possible, that there is a fair do all round. I am certain that the Government will not depart from that principle, no matter how long hon. Members opposite may want to pray in this House or elsewhere.

Lord William Scott: Lord William Scott rose—

Mr. Robens: I cannot give way; I have got to get back to the Committee which is considering the Gas Bill. The Ministry

of Fuel and Power have gradually built up and improved a system of control which has functioned with a very substantial measure of success, even during the severe winter of 1946. I think hon. Members are aware of the way in which that operates, and I will not weary the House with the details.
I have been asked what is the policy on relaxation. I think I have said sufficient to make it perfectly clear that at present we cannot relax controls to any material extent. The position, however, is kept under constant review, and whenever we are able to do so we allow some relaxation of the restrictions. At the beginning of March last, owing to the very satisfactory position of merchants' stocks, my right hon. Friend was able to make a concession to domestic consumers by abolishing for March and April the restrictions under which consumers who had received less than the maximum quantity in the earlier part of the year were prevented from carrying forward the deficiency, and from thus increasing the maximum they might purchase later in the year. Although this concession involved no guarantee that deliveries to this extent would be possible everywhere, it did permit merchants to deliver rather more to those consumers who had suffered from low deliveries earlier in the year.
In the general direction under discussion provision has been made for consumers in the South to obtain up to 20 cwt. during the Summer instead of 15 cwt. as last year. This will have a double effect, as far as supplies are available, of allowing consumers who want a ton during the summer to stock up their cellars to a greater extent than last year, and at the same time it will help to relieve the strain of winter distribution by merchants. We have also eliminated the quarterly restriction periods during the winter and substituted one half-yearly period, thus permitting greater elasticity in distribution during the winter.
At the same time, we have instructed local fuel overseers to permit separate registration during the current coal year to all sub-tenancies of two or more persons, and have thus moved an irritating restriction which formed a constant source of complaint, particularly for young married couples living in rooms, or with parents, because they could not obtain


separate accommodation. We shall continue to keep the supply position under review, in order to make such further relaxations as may be possible from time to time in the light of the special position and the export programme.
In relation to the comment made about the ability of the consumer to change his merchant, the right exists at present if the consumer moves his residence, or it the business of the merchant is transferred to another owner. Change of registration is also permitted when there has been unsatisfactory service, for which the merchant can be held responsible. In regard to the larger problem of complete changing of registrations, all I can say is that that matter is under consideration. I am sorry I have been so long and have possibly wearied the House with a long explanation of this Order, and matters arising from it. I hope, however, that from what I have said the House will readily come to a decision, and if this is pressed to a Division, that my hon. Friends will support me in the Lobby, for the freedom of the people of this country to have a fair deal in regard to coal against the method by which only those who have large cellars can stock up to the limit.

9.12 p.m.

Brigadier Medlicott: Will the Minister direct attention to one particular injustice which arises out of the geographical position of the line dividing these two areas of England? As the line is at present drawn, the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, which are exposed to inclement and cold weather in the winter, come into the Southern half, with the result that the allocation of coal for Norfolk and Suffolk is the same as for Torquay and Bournemouth. I gather that the line was drawn as a result of reference to a very ancient document. I beg the Minister to have a look into the matter, as it has resulted in serious injustice to people living on that part of the coast.

9.13 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: I listened with gratitude to a number of explanations the Parliamentary Secretary has given and I listened with interest. But he has not satisfied me that this is a good order. Indeed, I am more and more convinced as a result of this Debate that it is a thoroughly bad order. If this order were annulled, the

Parliamentary Secretary knows perfectly well that another order, a better order, could be made tomorrow. The Parliamentary Secretary said nothing about the rigidity of the order in that it prescribes a maximum which is irrespective of the number of rooms in the premises and the number of persons involved. He said nothing about the relation between quality and quantity. He said nothing to justify the apportionment of maximum allowances between Summer and Winter, and while referring to the very considerable stocks now in hand he gave no explanation why the maximum allowances could not be guaranteed.
Surely if stocks are as ample as he described, the Minister could perfectly well guarantee those very meagre allowances. Why could we not have that assurance from him tonight? He said nothing about the plans of his Ministry and this is a point on which I particularly asked for an assurance. He said nothing about the plans of his Ministry in the event of next Winter being as severe as the Winter before last. Apparently, the Ministry is going to gamble again on the weather.
Lastly, I should like an assurance on this point. When I said that his Ministry, in my view, was deliberately accumulating stocks with a view to releasing them and increasing the allowances just before the next General Election, I was not making an assertion which would affect his Ministry only. I say that it is the deliberate policy of every Department in this Government which controls any commodity—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that argument. It has nothing whatever to do with the Motion.

Sir J. Mellor: I must then confine the point to the Ministry of Fuel and Power, and I assert that it is the policy of that Ministry deliberately to accumulate stocks in order to release them shortly before the next General Election. In the circumstances, I propose to divide the House.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Direction, dated 23rd April, 1948, entitled the Coal Distribution Order, 1943, General Direction (Restriction of Supplies) No. 17 (S.I., 1948, No. 833), a copy of which was presented on 26th April, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 55; Noes. 227.

Division No. 151.]
AYES
[6.10 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Harden, J. R E
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Bossom, A. C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jennings, R.
Robinson, Roland


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Snadden, W. M.


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Spence, H. R.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Cole, T. L.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
MacLeod, J.
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Mellor, Sir J.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Elliot, RI. Hon. Walter
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Glyn, Sir R.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Grant, Lady
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, R. V.
Pitman, I. J.
Sir Arthur Young and


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Mr. Studholme.




NOES.


Acland, Sir Richard
Foot, M. M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Forman, J. C.
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Orbach, M.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. T. N.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Alpass, J. H.
Gallacher, W.
Palmer, A. M. F


Austin, H. Lewis
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Parkin, B. T.


Awbery, S. S.
George, Lady M Lloyd (Anglesey)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Ayles, W. H.
Gibbins, J.
Paton, J (Norwich)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gilzean, A.
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Baird, J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Pryde, D. J.


Balfour, A.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Greenwood, A. W J. (Heywood)
Reeves, J.


Barstow, P. G.
Grenfell, D. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Barton, C.
Grey, C. F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Battley, J. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Robens, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gunter, R. J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Berry, H.
Hale, Leslie
Royle, C.


Beswick, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Sargood, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Scollan, T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St Helens)


Boardman, H.
Harrison, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Bowden, Flg. Offr H. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Shurmer, P.


Bowen, R
Herbison, Miss M.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hewitson, Captain M.
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hobson, C. R.
Skeffington, A. M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
House, G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hoy, J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Snow, J. W.


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Burden, T. W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Soskice, Sir Frank


Burke, W. A.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Steele, T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jenkins, R. H.
Stross, Dr. B.


Byers, Frank
Johnston, Douglas
Stubbs, A. E.


Callaghan, James
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sylvester, G. O.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Keenan, W.
Symonds, A. L.


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, E. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Cluse, W. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Cobb, F. A.
Kinley, J.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Cocks, F. S.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Collick, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Collindridge, F.
Leonard, W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Collins, V. J.
Leslie, J. R.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Levy, B. W.
Tiffany, S.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Timmons, J.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Titterington, M. F.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lipson, D. L.
Tolley, L.


Cove, W. G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Crawley, A
Logan, D. G.
Viant, S. P.


Daggar, G.
Lyne, A. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Daines, P.
McAdam, W.
Watkins, T. E.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
McAllister, G.
Watson, W. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGhee, H. G.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGovern, J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McKinlay, A. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Deer, G.
McLeavy, F.
Wigg, George


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Diamond, J.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mellish, R. J.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Edelman, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willis, E.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Monslow, W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Moody, A. S.
Woodburn, A.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Morley, R.
Woods, G. S.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wyatt, W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon- H. (Lewisham, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mort, D. L.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Murray, J. D.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Ewart, R.
Nally, W.



Fairhurst, F.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Farthing, W J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Fernyhough, E.
Noel-Baker. Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Mr. Hannan.


Resolution agreed to.

Division No. 152.
AYES
[9.15 p.m.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Snadden, W. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Challen, C.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Maitland, Comdr, J. W
Thorneycroft, G. E P (Monmouth)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S (Cirencester)
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Foster, J, G. (Northwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox Sir G.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Odey, G. W.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Grimston, R. V.
Pitman, I. J.
York, C.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Young, Sir A S L (Partick)


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Raikes, H. V.



Howard, Hon. A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jennings, R.
Renton, D.
Colonel Gemme-Duncan and


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)
Sir John Mellor.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.





NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith South)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fairhurst, F.
Lipson, D. L.


Alpass, J. H.
Farthing, W. J.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Fernyhough, E.
Logan, D. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Field, Capt. W. J.
Lyne, A. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Fletcher, E. G. M, (Islington, E.)
McAdam, W.


Bacon, Miss. A.
Follick, M.
McAllister, G.


Baird, J.
Forman, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.


Balfour, A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.


Barton, C.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon H. I. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Battley, J. R
Gallacher, W.
McKinlay, A. S


Bechervaise, A. E.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McLeavy, F.


Berry, H.
Gibbins, J.
Mallalieu, J. P W. (Huddersfield)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gilzean, A.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Binns, J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mellish, R. J.


Blackburn, A R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Blenkinsop, A.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)
Moody, A. S.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gunter, R. J.
Morley, R.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Bowen, R.
Hale, Leslie
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham. E.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mort, D. L.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moyle, A.


Bramall, E. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mulvey, A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Harrison, J.
Nally, W.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.
Herbison, Miss. M.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Burden, T. W.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
O'Brien, T.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Holmes, H. E (Hemsworth)
Oldfield, W. H.


Champion, A J.
Hoy, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Orbach, M.


Cobb, F. A.
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.)
Paget, R. T.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Collindridge, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collins, V. J.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pearson, A.


Daggar, G.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Daines, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Popplewell, E.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, R. H.
Price, M. Philips


Deer, G.
Johnston, Douglas
Pritt, D. N.


Diamond, J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Pryde, D. J.


Dobbie, W.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Kendall, W. D.
Rankin, J.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C
Reeves, J.


Edelman, M.
King, E. M.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellly)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Rhodes, H.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kinley, J.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Robens, A.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Levy, B. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)







Royle, C.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Scollan, T.
Symonds, A. L.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Sharp, Granville
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Wilkes, L.


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, John R, (Dover)
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Shurmer, P.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Willis, E.


Skeffington, A. M.
Tiffany, S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Skinnard, F. W.
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Titterington, M. F.
Wise, Major F. J.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Tolley, L.
Woodburn, A.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S)
Turner-Samuels, M.
Woods, G. S.


Snow, J. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Yates, V. F.


Sorensen, R. W.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.



Soskice, Sir Frank
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sparks, J. A.
Walkden, E.
Mr. Simmons and


Stross, Dr. B.
Weitzman, D.
Mr. G. Wallace.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Application of enact- ments in relation to river board areas.)

Sir T. Dugdale: I beg to move, in page 40, line 1, after "apply," to insert:
and so much of Section six of that Act as provides that a person against whom proceedings are proposed to be taken under Part III of that Act may object to such proceedings being taken, and requires that a sanitary authority shall afford such a person an opportunity of being heard against such proceedings being taken, and provides for matters incidental to such hearing, shall not apply to proceedings which are proposed to be taken by a River Board.
This Amendment is designed to simplify the machinery of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, where river boards are desirous of taking proceedings to stop pollution. It is agreed by both sides of the House that this Act is very unsatisfactory and out of date. The procedure to be adopted under it can be divided into four different steps. The first is that if action is proposed under the Act an application must be made to the Minister of Health for permission to prosecute. If that has been received the next step is the investigation of the case by the Ministry followed by either permission or refusal for the prosecution to be commenced. The third stage is that where permission to prosecute has been granted, a period of two months must elapse during which time the offender may require the authority proposing to prosecute to hear him in public why it should not do so. The Amendment proposes to delete that stage in order to simplify the machinery. The fourth stage is, following that period, the bringing of proceedings before the county court assisted by skilled assessors.
6.30 p.m.
The Amendment does not in any way alter the incidence of existing pollution legislation but merely expedites the pro-


ceedings where the Minister himself has agreed that a good case exists to be brought before the courts. We realise that at this stage it would be wrong to recommend any change in the law because we are aware that a sub-committee of the Central Advisory Water Committee is considering the whole question of pollution and that this Bill is a machinery Bill. A river board will be set up and its success or failure to do its job will depend upon future legislation dealing with the ever-increasing evil of pollution. However, pending legislation, we feel that we ought, to make certain suggestions in order to simplify the procedure, which appears to be cumbersome.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some guidance on this point. I would like to hear him say that the Central Advisory Water Committee are likely to report in the immediate future and that he is prepared to have the report published and made available to hon. Members immediately. It would be very helpful to the House and the country if we could know that he hopes that the report will be in our hands during 1948. We had only a short discussion on this point during the Committee stage because we hoped that when we got to this stage in the proceedings the Parliamentary Secretary might have further information to give us about the future activities of that sub-committee. Meanwhile, we suggest in this Amendment that the present method of approaching this problem under the 1876 Act be reviewed and simplified.

Mr. John Morrison: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not want to take up the time of the House, for a great deal has been said on the subject of pollution. The Amendment is a step towards dealing with the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. Edwards): I do not want to follow the hon. Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) into a discussion about the procedure which has to be followed because, in resisting this Amendment, I take my stand, as I did in Standing Committee, on a matter of considerable principle. We have already instituted through a subcommittee of the Central Advisory Water

Committee a comprehensive investigation of the law in relation to the prevention of pollution. This sub-committee comprises persons who have a first-hand knowledge of the problem. They have been given a free hand. They are being assisted by expert assessors from all the interested Government Departments. They have taken written and oral evidence from every interest concerned and are, I am confident, examining all the problems, including the very question of the procedure covered by the Amendment. I put it to the hon. Baronet and his hon. Friends that it would be most unfair to the subcommittee if we were to pre-judge their deliberations in this manner. Nevertheless, I would be the last person to want to deter the House from doing something about pollution if I thought that something in this way could be done, or if I thought that not doing this would impair the work of the river boards.
The sub-committee are at work. They are considering the terms in which they shall report. I have every reason to expect that the report will be made this year, and certainly as soon as it is available we shall proceed with its publication. If it were possible to single out procedures or things of that kind there might be something to be said for taking this step today, but we have a well conceived programme for dealing with the whole matter in which we have carried hon. Members on both sides of the House with us. The programme is that, first, we should form the river boards—authorities with comprehensive powers who will be responsible for the whole river system—and get rid, by so doing, of the present patchwork of piecemeal administration, which is commonly agreed to be the greatest defect in our present system; and then, as closely afterwards as possible, give new powers to the boards and have a large programme of new works of sewerage, sewage disposal and so on as circumstances permit.
It is on the grounds that I am most reluctant to accept isolated amendments of the law while the whole matter is being reviewed that I resist the Amendment. I am quite sure that the time it will take after this Bill has become law to get the river boards set up and working will be ample for us to consider the report of the sub-committee, have it properly discussed with all the interested parties and, in due course, to confer the necessary powers on the river boards. I


hope that the hon. Baronet will feel that in the light of this explanation he need not press his Amendment. I assure him that we are as concerned as he is about pollution, but we do not want to prejudge the issue and embarrass these distinguished people who are giving their time and energy to a complete survey of the problems involved in the law relating to water pollution.

Mr. Turton: The Parliamentary Secretary said that to accept the Amendment would not be fair to the sub-committee but by denying the acceptance of the Amendment he is not being fair to the rivers. Let us admit that the whole law of pollution must be remedied, but it will take many years before we get a Pollution Bill before the House of Commons. What hope has the Minister of Agriculture of getting a Pollution Bill into next Session's programme? If it is likely that there will be no Pollution Bill before Parliament in the near future, surely that is a strong reason for wiping out one archaic feature of the present law. Nobody on the sub-committee or in this House can defend the position that, having obtained the Minister's approval to prosecute and having held the local inquiry, there should be two months' delay while we haggle with the sanitary authorities. Surely we might remove the two months? That will mean that the rivers will be less polluted than they will otherwise be and our mechanism will be that much speedier. I agree that it now takes some 10 months from the time the nuisance first occurs until proceedings are taken in the county court. All we are doing is reducing the 10 months by two months but that is a great advantage. That is an interim measure, and after a few years when the Minister of Agriculture—I expect that he will be a Minister of Agriculture of a different political complexion—brings in—

Mr. Stubbs: Some hopes.

Mr. Turton: The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs) says that he has some hopes. I can tell him that his hopes are very probable expectations and he may well think about the future with little complacency. I am at one with the Parliamentary Secretary in wanting to get the whole of the pollution law into the melting

pot and devising a new and up-to-date method of procedure, but let us not have this non possumus attitude that until that happens the Government will do everything to retain the archaic features of the system which our ancestors have handed to us simply because they feel that we must not do something piecemeal for fear of offending some sub-committee. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will press his Amendment to a Division.

Mr. David Kenton: Again I find the Government's attitude quite incomprehensible. Several times through the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary the Government have agreed that the present situation is most unsatisfactory, and they have told us in the plainest possible terms that nothing can be done about it very soon. If the subcommittee were reporting next month and the Report being implemented by legislation this Session, I would agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it would be rather offensive to the sub-committee to pass this Amendment now, but the position is very different. The position is that the report may be available this year and we do not know whether there will be legislation even in the next Session. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee if there was any chance of it and he said that he could give no undertaking.
Bearing in mind that there is to be this very considerable gap before matters are improved, I should have thought the sub-committee could not possibly have been offended if the Government said, "We are not trying to hustle you or to prejudice your findings but, bearing in mind that your recommendations cannot be carried out for quite a long time, would you, entirely without prejudice, accept this stop-gap Measure in order to prevent delays until something more satisfactory can be arranged?" A committee of reasonable men could not possibly be offended by an approach in that manner, and for that reason, I invite the House entirely to disregard what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the feelings of the sub-committee.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.47 p.m.

Mr. G. Brown: I am glad to have the opportunity of speaking on the Third Reading of this important Measure. We have heard speeches telling us that the Bill is in many ways a small one, but it is a step forward, and an important step forward. It has been welcomed from every side of the House. The welcome from the Opposition side of the House was, it seemed to me, a little lukewarm, but I gathered that their enthusiasm for the Bill developed as they were the more convinced that we were not going to operate it as Conservative Governments in the past would have done. I am not sure that we have fully convinced them about it, but it is clear that they ate more keen and enthusiastic about the Bill than they were when it was first introduced.
The Bill is an important step forward in the development of machinery and in the unification of control of our rural drainage systems. We have heard speeches referring to the archaic customs of our ancestors, and other such rolling phrases, but the fact is that we have been talking about unification of this control for very nearly a century, certainly for well over half a century. I might be forgiven therefore for saying how proud and glad I am that it has been left to this Labour Government to take this opportunity to proceed to the next step from the first step which was taken by the previous Labour Government, as a result of which land drainage has been in a very much better condition than it would otherwise have been. The River Boards Bill carries on that great work. It has been well said in other connections that Labour gets things done. The Bill bears out the truth of that well-known statement.
I have said that this is an important Bill. We recognise it as only a step forward. We have to complete that step forward. We have now to proceed to set up river boards. I would like to assure the House that we shall lose as little time as we can in carrying out the most important part of that step. Getting the river boards set up will involve considerable consultation with all sorts of people. Quite a lot of work will be involved, but no time will be lost. It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to

proceed immediately with the completion of this step. The next step is the modernisation of the pollution and drain age legislation of this country generally. Sub-committees of the Central Water Advisory Committee are hard at work on the subject. In passing this Bill on its way I want to say how much one hopes, and is sure, that it will fall to the lot of a Labour Government, perhaps even of this Labour Government, to carry the whole thing a step forward by introducing important legislation for modernising our attitude on these matters If this task does not fall to a Labour Government then, unless the whole history of this country for the last century or two is to be falsified, the task will not be done at all.
The Bill is very largely a compromise Measure. It has involved taking into account the views of a variety of interests and keeping a firm and fair balance among those interests. It has followed, because of that, that my right hon. Friend has had to resist a number of Amendments which have had as their purpose the advancement of sectional interests. He has had to preserve the balance, in spite of the blandishments, and sometimes the accusations, which have come from the other side of the House. The result is that there will be a much happier atmosphere for the commencement of the operation of the Bill than if we had allowed ourselves to be persuaded to disturb the balance which had been so painfully reached. I am sure that the House will be in full agreement with the attitude that my right hon. Friend has adopted on that point. During its passage through the House the Bill has been improved in many ways. We would like to thank hon. Members for the very calm and careful consideration which the Bill has had. There was only one time when the calm was disturbed, and that was when an hon. Baronet opposite physically assaulted his right hon. and gallant Friend by heaving his glasses at him. On that occasion, my sympathies were equally divided between the hon. Baronet and his right hon. Friend. Otherwise we have had a very calm discussion.
The Opposition have suggested at various stages that the Bill showed an undue partiality for the interests of urban districts generally. It was suggested even that it was somehow a little indecent that


my right hon. Friend, as Minister of Agriculture, should be concerned with urban interests in the way that has been alleged. We think it is wrong to suggest that the Bill shows partiality in any way to urban interests. The countryside cannot simultaneously get the assistance of townsfolk in dealing with these problems and at the same time expect to hold the townsfolk at arms length. It is important that we should get this point clear. We think that the townsfolk and the urban districts have to accept their share of responsibility for things which might seem primarily to be a countryman's interest but which are an important part of the general life of the country. If that is so, those who claim to have the interests of the countryside at heart must not try to keep alive all the antagonisms many of which are quite artificial and have the effect 'of divorcing and dividing that important community of interest.
The Bill seeks to give, and I believe it does give, to urban areas a representation which emphasises the responsibility which they are now being asked to accept. We believe that to be a fair and a very important principle, if the new river boards are to get off to a good start. For half a century or more we have overlooked the importance to our river systems of unification of control. When the Bill finally leaves us we believe it will lead to cleaner rivers and better sport for anglers, something which is very much the concern of hon. Members all round the House. We believe it will lead to much greater development of drainage work. Many of the older authorities, the Catchment Boards and the even older one, the Fishery Boards, have done extremely good work, but they have been cruelly handicapped very often by lack of support and facilities. We believe that the support and facilities given by the Bill will enable their work to be carried very much further. When the river boards are established and as their work develops, we believe that much that now shames us about our rivers will be gone for ever. It is in that spirit that the Bill marks an important step forward in this highly desirable, very necessary and overdue work of unifying the control of our rivers.

6.55 p.m.

Sir T. Dugdale: I know that I can associate myself and my hon. Friends on this side of the House with the closing

words of the Parliamentary Secretary's speech. We welcome the Bill in the main as being a step forward in setting up a comprehensive authority for all functions connected with rivers. We hope that the improvements that the river boards will be able to accomplish in their areas will be very marked from every point of view. We consider that the Bill is only a machinery Bill, although it is a very necessary bit of machinery. Its success or otherwise, as I said earlier in the evening, must depend upon future legislation dealing with pollution, which some Government of some complexion will have to carry through this House. I would not agree with the Parliamentary Secretary in his assumption that it must be a Labour administration.
During the passage of the Bill we have emphasised at all stages the overdue representation of the urban areas. We do not seek in any way—to use the Parliamentary Secretary's term—to keep old antagonisms alive. We take the view that urban areas with a high rateable value have been given undue representation as compared with rural areas, which are much more intimately associated and concerned with river problems of drainage, fisheries and pollution. They have had more experience in these matters. We therefore feel that urban representation has been overdone.
The Government have insisted that, irrespective of the financial contribution, local authorities should never nominate fewer than three-fifths of the total membership of any river board. We consider that proportion to be wrong and that is why we have argued that point through all the stages of the Bill. We admit that the number of cases where land drainage provides, say, three-quarters of the total income of an existing catchment board, must be very small, but this is the place in this country where minorities are protected. This House is the guardian of minority interests. On these benches we have done our utmost to safeguard the interests of these catchment boards and have tried to convince the Government that they should give further consideration to this aspect of the matter.
The Minister has tried to meet the point that we raised on Clause 2 in connection with fishery interests. We do not consider that he has gone far enough and we are sorry that he was not able to meet us by appointing a fishery committee for regu-


lating matters connected with fisheries. The fishery interests of this country have done a great deal in all the river board areas under the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act, 1923. They feel very strongly that what they gained through that Act is now being taken away from them under this Bill. They have made a great contribution to improving the cleanliness of our river system, and we wish the Minister had been able to go further in that regard.
I want to raise one other point which I do not think has been discussed to any great extent during the passage of this Bill, that is, the taking of water from rivers. I urge the Minister to lose no time in setting up these river boards. The sooner they are set up the better. We may be faced—I think we shall—with the prospect of a severe drought in parts of the country during the Summer. This will mean that water authorities will have much pressure put on them to abstract water from rivers. I believe this to be a disastrous policy in the long run. You cannot keep on taking water from rivers and expect the flow to continue indefinitely. When more and more water is wanted in the country and in the great cities, I trust that the river boards will be strong enough and important enough to resist such pressure from water undertakings, and will be able to encourage the full exploration of possible alternative supplies, such as deep wells and other sources, before acceding to abstraction from rivers. As the usages of water, which are growing, expand still further, we shall find ourselves short of water unless definite measures are taken to watch the water supply. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he is dealing with that aspect of the matter, will take note of this point. Finally, I would wish, as I know my hon. Friends on this side wish, success to every river board when it is established. Each river board will have to do a very difficult job, a very important job, and a very necessary job for the wellbeing of the countryside and the nation.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Renton: Generally at this stage of a Bill we are able to rejoice that, by the efforts of Members on both sides, the Bill has been improved since it was introduced. On this occasion, however, I regret to

have to place on record my view that this Bill is not now as good as when it first came here. I say that mainly because the representation on river boards has been altered, and because I believe the Minister has adopted an attitude there which is not likely, in the long run, to produce the best results. Bearing in mind the importance of angling and fishing interests—and it was not until I came to study this Bill, and heard it talked about, that I realised the difference between angling and fishing, and even now only realise that angling is fishing writ large—it seems to me that their representation by only two members is not enough. As the hon. Baronet has mentioned, it is most important that the interests of minorities should be protected in a democracy, and I do not feel that we have sufficiently represented on the river boards that very worthy minority of people who in their leisure time engage in angling and fishing.
The Parliamentary Secretary welcomed the support he had had from both sides of the House, but I felt that his welcome was a little besmirched by the party capital he tried to make at the expense of my hon. Friends above the gangway, as to the competence of one party or the other to make these river boards function well. I should have thought that, if we wanted them to function well, that was the wrong way to start off. In conclusion, may I ask the Minister when he intends to set up the river boards? If it is not in the nature of a red-herring, I should like also to have enlightenment on one further point: that is, if and when a river which is at present polluted is again purified, will the river board have power to re-stock the river with fish? Nature has wonderful ways of bringing fish to places where fish can thrive, but nature works very slowly, and it will obviously be necessary to consider the possibility of re-stocking the rivers. I should like to know whether river boards will have power to do so.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: This subject is of deep interest to my constituents, many of whose homes were flooded in 1946, and to many others who are obliged to pay drainage rates although they cannot possibly derive any benefit from them, and in spite of the provisions in the Land Drainage Act of 1930, Section 1 (5). This


is a good Bill, introduced by a good Minister—one of the best in the Government I should say—and I intervene only to urge him not to be weary in well doing but to go on with his good work. He knows there are many difficulties in the existing law, still embodied in this Bill, which need to be put right.
The operation of the drainage boards is one of them. On the lower slopes of Ilkley Moor, although well above the flood level, there are many dauntless Hampdens in militant mood who are very reluctant to pay their drainage rates. I know he will attend to this problem, because he has stated that a sub-committee of the Central Water Advisory Committee is studying this problem and he hopes that legislation will follow. I hope it will fall to him to introduce that legislation at an early date. I have only one other matter to refer to, and that is the question of representation on river boards which has been raised by several hon. Members. We feel, in my part of the world, that the rural interests are very well represented, and so are the large urban interests; but I can see no provision for representation of non-county boroughs. I did not feel it proper to put down an Amendment on this point, but when the Minister constitutes these bodies I hope he will use them to ensure that these areas are properly represented. With those few words, I give my full blessing to this Measure.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Lambert: I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House are in agreement with the general intention of this Bill, which is to ensure that our rivers are cleaner and our land is better drained. However, as one who has the honour to represent an agricultural and rural constituency, I feel that the rural interests have been sacrificed for the urban interests. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) who expressed disagreement with the representation of the river boards. In my constituency, and in fact all over Devonshire, there is considerable apprehension among the fishery interests. They are wondering how they will fare under the Bill. I urge the Minister, in administering this Bill, to let them see that they will fare well, because they represent a considerable proportion of the community, and without their good

will the working of the Bill cannot be as good as it might be.
In conclusion, I would like to put in the claim of Devonshire to have two river boards when the Minister draws them up. It is a large county and has many rivers —admittedly small ones, but they are of considerable importance locally. In addition, the county is divided by Dartmoor, and the people north of Dartmoor have little or no identity of interests with the people south of Dartmoor. Therefore, I urge the Minister to see that Devon is well represented.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Cherwynd: I hope the hon. Member for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) will not mind if I do not follow him in his allusions to the inhabitants of Dartmoor. I think some of them would welcome an opportunity of doing a little fishing now and again. I want only to make a brief intervention to express the hope that my right hon. Friend will set up these river boards as soon as possible, and that in a reasonable time he will give us some idea of the geographical areas of the river boards. There is bound to be a good deal of local wrangling as to which areas should be allotted to any particular board.
In my own part of the country I do not think we shall have much trouble with the River Tees, because it makes a homogeneous unit for a single river board administration. We have heard so much about the differences of rural and urban areas as regards river boards, but we ought to stop regarding this as a kind of dog fight between the two. The river should be a unifying force, and not one which divides one community from another. It is the same water which starts at the source and finishes in the sea. We ought to look on the river as a unit and not as an interest to be fought over between rural and urban districts.
The hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) said that this was a machinery Bill. I agree entirely. Then he said that it would not be of much use unless further legislation ensued. It will not be of much use unless we have the right men to work it. We want men with vision and foresight, men who feel that they have a mission to make our rivers really worth while. If we have those people now, we need not wait until further legis-


lation ensues, because they can ensure by vigorous action that the best possible use is made of our rivers. I hope, whether it is a Labour Government or any other Government, that our deliberations will result in much bigger and better fishing for many anglers all over the country.

7.15 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stress: As one who represents an urban constituency, I express my approval of this Bill. The River Trent runs through my Division of Hanley, rising two or three miles away, and for some time we have been suffering from great pollution of this river. We are also aware that a change has occurred, for certain reasons, which makes us the keenest advocates of a Bill of this kind which will help to clean up our own river. This evening there has been reference to the tension that exists between urban and rural interests. I do not agree that that tension really does exist today. With very little encouragement we can abolish this tension, because our interests are now becoming the same. The days of indiscriminate and licentious use of our rivers are now passing; great masses of our people, certainly in my constituency, want to see our own river cleaned up, and that must apply to the whole of the country.
We are particularly conscious that we gained a great advantage through the pollution of this river where it runs through my own area. We have near us a great estate where the Dukes of Sutherland and Trentham have lived. It virtually belongs to the city now, but we doubt very much whether we would have been allowed to use it if it had not been that by pollution of the river we drove the original owners out. We made it very offensive. We made it almost impossible for anyone who was sensitive to smell to live on the estate. We are, as it were, poachers who are now likely to become gamekeepers. Having obtained some privilege, we want to see it perpetuated, and we would like the original conditions to be brought back. That does not mean that we would welcome back the original owner, because 60 or 70 years' usage have made us so accustomed to the amenities of one of the loveliest estates and parks, particularly the Italian Park, that anyone has ever seen.
Anything that is done to allow simple, clean sport for urban dwellers is bound

to have the fullest support of those who have to live in our cities. Therefore, anything that will help us in this direction must receive our support. There is no difference between the interests of those who live in the countryside and those who live in the cities.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: Before we reach the final chapter of this Bill, I would like to express my thanks to hon. Members in all parts of the House, and particularly those who have followed the Bill through the Second Reading, Committee and Report stages. I believe the Bill may, perhaps, be slightly improved, compared with what it was when it first arrived in this House. As the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) truly said, this is a machinery Bill, but I think it is a Bill of great importance nevertheless. Once we can have the report of the sub-committee dealing with pollution and drainage, and we can clothe the machinery with the right powers, this Bill will be the foundation stone upon which we can build cleaner rivers, better drainage, agriculture, and fishing, and better sport all round.
I have about three points to reply to. I would like, first, to reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond and the hon. Members for South Molton (Mr. Lambert) and Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) who said that the rural areas were let down in this Bill. They seem to have forgotten, because they wanted to forget, that if there is a balance of advantage at all in this Bill with regard to urban or rural representation, the rural areas have got it. May I remind those hon. Members that in 42 of 52 catchment boards, drainage boards pay less than one-third of the revenue, and yet we give them at least one-third of the representation? In 18 catchment areas, drainage boards did not pay a penny, yet we give them at least one-third of the representation. I think it is right that that should be so, but it is utterly contrary to the suggestion that rural Britain is left out. In fact, in this Bill rural areas have been given a fairly big piece of the pie.
The hon. Member for Huntingdon referred to minorities and to anglers in particular. He will perhaps be happier when he knows that the main fishery boards, who have been operating very successfully, particularly in the West


Riding of Yorkshire and Lancashire, are quite happy with the Bill as it stands. The anglers' national association are quite pleased with the assurance given them in Committee. Since then there has been no representation from them, but they are satisfied that we mean well and will fulfil our pledges and that minorities are safeguarded within the Bill. The hon. Member also asked when the river boards will be set up. I am afraid that before the last is set up one or two years, or even more, will have passed. I can assure him, however, that no time will be lost. Catchment boards are very anxious that the transformation shall take place so that they can start tomorrow where they leave off today. They are anxious to accept and fulfil their new obligations. No time will be lost in setting up river boards. The hon. Member also asked about restocking rivers with fresh fish. Presumably that will be an obligation on the part of the river boards to decide where anglers wish to fish and to seek to satisfy their desires as nearly as practicable.
I am thankful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) for his personal observations. He can rest assured that we are fully conscious of the drainage problems in many parts of the country where, unfortunately, remedies have not been found for periodic floods. I know how unpleasant it is when people are called upon to pay drainage rates and yet know that from time to time they are not protected from floods. Wherever it is possible for a river board to use their power and ingenuity to resolve problems which have been with us for a long time, I hope the boards will not hesitate to spend the money and do the job.
With every other Member, I want to see those millions of anglers enjoying themselves and agriculture improved because of better drainage. If this drainage problem had been dealt with 20 or 30 years ago in as determined a fashion as it is now being dealt with through the catchment boards, it would have been a very minor problem today. I hope this small but very important machinery Bill, which has been welcomed in every part of the House, will lay the foundation stone for better drainage throughout the country.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed with Amendments.

ELECTORAL REGISTER (PRINTING)

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move:
That the Electoral Registration Regulations, 1948, dated 28th April, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 29th April, be approved.
Only one very short point is involved here. The purpose of this small Amendment to the existing regulations is to give three more days to the printers in which to prepare the annual register. The regulations achieves this by bringing forward by three days the date on which the lists have to be published, and that gives three more days to the printers in England and Wales only. Only in England and Wales has it been found necessary to make the adjustment, and I do not think anyone loses at the other end of the period.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL

As amended, considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(Acceptance of property by the Trustees.)

7.25 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I beg to move, at the end, to insert:
(2) Any property, other than money or authorised investments, accepted by the trustees under the said Subsection (2) shall be held upon trust for sale:
Provided that the trustees may in their discretion postpone the sale and conversion of any such property for such time as they think fit.
This Amendment follows an Amendment which I accepted the other night when we were discussing the Bill in Committee. I indicated that it would be necessary when we reached a further stage in the Bill to make provision in order to see that when property was left it could be adequately dealt with. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Northern Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) was anxious that trustees should be allowed to accept


and to hold, if so minded, property either given to them, or which came to them under a will as a bequest. In this Amendment we have provided for that. In addition, by the proviso, we have safeguarded the trustees—it may be theoretical, but nevertheless we think it essential—against any investments they desire to hold depreciating in their hands.

Mr. Viant: The trustees of this Fund will appreciate the spirit in which the Government have put this forward. They have met the general request. It would be unfair to let this pass without expressing our appreciation at the manner in which the Amendment has been tabled, and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

7.27 p.m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I wish to utter a sentence or two before this Bill is given a Third Reading. Clearly there is a misconception in the country in regard to this Bill. I know that newspapers are now short of space and have much to deal with, but there is an idea in the country, which was expressed to me last week, that by this Bill hon. Members are securing a pension towards which the State contributes. I think it should be made perfectly clear that not one penny of State funds goes towards this Fund. It comes entirely from the contributions of Members of Parliament, and that is the only source from which it does come. This Bill, undoubtedly, is a concession, and I am glad that the Lord President acted so quickly upon the representations made to the Government on the report presented to the House by the Committee led by the Financial Secretary. It will bring some measure of relief to many old hon. Members of this House and their wives, and, in some cases, to their orphan children. It does not go as far as I would have wished, nor as far as some other hon. Members would have wished.
I think I am now the only one of the original members of the trustees, although the time is very short—only some 10 years

—but I have been continuously a Member of the House through those years, and the need for some system of pension has impressed me very considerably. I am only expressing my own point of view, but I think that the day may come, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take note of this, when pensions of moderate character should be given to Members of Parliament without any means test whatever, and subscribed to by themselves, though possibly with some little assistance from the Treasury. I hope that time will come.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am much obliged to the House for the kindly reception given to this Bill, and for the expeditious way in which it has been dealt with. It arose out of representations which we received from various quarters of the House and from Members of various parties, and we thought that it was right to meet their points and produce a Measure under which allowances could be made and under which we could get a greater degree of elasticity in administration. I would like to emphasise what has just been said by the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) in pointing out that this Fund is entirely financed by the contributions of hon. Members of the House of Commons, apart from any benevolent donations that people outside might like to make, which would be welcome. Otherwise, it is entirely financed by Members of the House of Commons, and there is no public money in the Fund at all.
I think it is a sensible and public-spirited action by hon. Members of this House to do what they can to assist former hon. Members who are in financial difficulties after a given period of service to the House. It is the case that a large number of hon. Members can never expect or hope to get any personal advantage from this Fund. That is probably true of the great majority, and that is a tribute to the public spirit of hon. Members and to their love of this great Parliamentary institution. Therefore, I would like to pay my tribute to their public spirit, and to reinforce the point made by the hon. Gentleman that there is no public money in this Fund at all. I only wish in conclusion, to thank hon. Members for their assistance.


This is eminently a co-operative enterprise in relation to all parties in the House, and I thank the House as a whole for the kindly spirit in which this Bill has been received.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

CHILDREN [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for the care or welfare of boys and girls when they are without parents or living away from their parents, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the following payments out of moneys provided by Parliament:

A. Payments to local authorities of not more than fifty per cent, of their expenditure in the discharge of their functions under the enactments hereinafter specified, together with their appropriate share of receipts under the provisions of any of the said enactments as to contributions towards expenses and as to affiliation orders and decrees for aliment.
B. Grants in respect of the fees and expenses of persons undergoing training in connection with their employment or future employment either for the purposes of any of the said enactments or by voluntary organisations for similar purposes, in respect of the cost of maintenance of persons undergoing such training, and in respect of the cost of providing such training.
C. Grants in respect of voluntary homes
D. Payments in respect of the travelling, subsistence and other expenses of members of advisory councils and committees thereof.
E. Payments in respect of the expenses of appeal tribunals and the fees and allowances of members of appeal tribunals. 
F. The payment of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) under the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to inspectors;
(ii) under the Family Allowances Act, 1945, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session as to the inclusion in a family of certain children.
G. Payment of the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State.
The enactments hereinbefore referred to are the said Act of the present Session, Parts III and IV of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, the provisions relating to child life protection of Part VII of the Public Health Act, 1936, and the provisions of Part XIII

of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, Parts I. IV and V of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland), Act, 1937, and the Adoption of Children (Regulation) Act, 1939.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Ordered:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Ely, a copy of which Order was presented on 10th May, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

COTTON FIBRE (PRICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — (Mr. Popplewell.)

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: It is my desire to draw the attention of the House tonight to the widespread concern caused in the cotton spinning industry and in the cotton consuming industries by the increasing prices of cotton fibre. There are quite a number of internal and external prices that are governed almost completely by the prices of raw cotton fibre. The most disconcerting feature of the whole position is the terrific rise that has taken place this year since January. We find that since January the price of raw cotton fibre, particularly staple varieties of Egyptian type has risen 4s. 6d. a pound. Had it been the case that the price of cotton fibre before the war had risen to the extent of a halfpenny we should have had loud complaints in the trade, saying they could not possibly manage under the increased price. Here, however, we have since January an increase in the price of cotton fibre to the extent of 4s. 6d., and this price increase is still going on. I hope that when the President of the Board of Trade replies he will be able to reassure the people concerned with the trade, not only in cotton spinning but also in the yarn consuming industries, of which there are so many in and around Nottingham.
There are important aspects of the position caused by this phenomenal rise which I wish to emphasise. Nottingham is one of the greatest yarn consuming parts of the country. We have concentrated there quite a number of industries that depend solely on the consumption of cotton yarn. I refer to industries such as

the lace industry, the clothing industry, and the hosiery industry. I ought to say first that, from the information I have sought, the facts do not support the contention that the continuance of the Liverpool Cotton Exchange could have materially altered the position. No amount of price straddling by the Liverpool brokers would have enabled us to-avert the present position. They could not have stretched so far. No doubt, individual brokers would have profited considerably from the rising market to the disadvantage of the trade in general.
Another general complaint I do not feel inclined to support is that about the incidence of bulk buying—that this bulk buying is the substance of the trouble. I have examined that position, and from what I can see of the matter, over-all bulk buying in cotton has resulted in the purchase of the fibre as cheaply as demand and supply and the availability of dollar currency would permit. There are matters, apart from these generalisations, of detail connected with the Cotton Commission treatment of transactions which I should like the Minister to examine. It is only by the examination of the details of this crisis that the cotton consuming trade can overcome its present difficulties. I say the cotton consuming trade because that it is these trades which come directly in touch with the individual consumers whether at home or abroad, and it is in that particular trade that we see the phenomenal rise in the price of cotton reflected in the price of made-up articles.
I will take the Nottingham lace trade as an example. The export target side for this particular trade is £12 million, this being double the 1946 figure. It means that nearly every bit of cotton or lace produced will be earmarked for export. This particular industry uses almost entirely


Egyptian types of yarn. The machinery operating in the finer counts cannot possibly use the American types of yarn. There are no prospects whatever, so far as we can see, of Egyptian cotton being substituted by cotton from other countries, even of the Egyptian type. That means that we must face in that particular trade the increased prices which are considerable and, to some extent, alarming unless the Minister can assist us.
Speaking of the spinning industry for a moment, they were encouraged to use soft currency area cotton, especially Ashmunei and Zagora types which were substitutes for the American, and this change-over was operationally simple. In February, the Ashmunei type was 22.25 pence per pound and American 23 pence per pound. With prices approximating, the change-over was a comparatively simple matter. Today, the position is considerably different, and if we could change over now it would mean that the price ranges would be, Ashmunei 44.75 pence against American 26 pence. That grave disparity of prices makes the change-over a very serious matter indeed. This trade is told that it can substitute Egyptian grown cotton by Egyptian types, but it is difficult to see from where four or five million spindles that can use both types, can be supplied. I would like the Minister to give some information on that particularly grave position so far as the spinning trade is concerned.
There are today certain types of American fibres of fine quality that could be bought at reasonable prices if only we could use the necessary dollars. It seems to us that it would be a good investment on this occasion to invest in this alternative supply of fine fibres. By so doing we could hold off the Egyptian market for some time and they would face the possibility of losing one of their biggest customers for fine Egyptian cotton, which is, of course, this country. Those are matters of great importance which affect a considerable portion of our national trade. Our ability to sell abroad is affected considerably by these rising prices, and also the stability of our prices at home for thousands of commodities are affected because of this rise in the price of cotton fibre.
In addition to the difficulties of the rising price of cotton yarn, we have another difficulty which I hope the Minister will take into consideration when con-

sidering the position generally. That is the effect of the devaluation of the franc. This position can best be illustrated from the following extracts from letters from our agents in Venezuela who deal with cotton laces. The first is dated 31st March, 1948:
We regret to inform you that the possibilities of selling British laces seems to be definitely over, due to the very active French competition. There is already sold a very large quantity of their fine and well known quality at prices far below the British. This situation has come to a point when importers do not show any more interest in Nottingham lace.
The second letter, dated 2nd May, 1948, included this particular reference to our products in that country:
Deliveries from France are quick, and prices cheaper than the English.
I would not suggest for a minute that those two letters indicate the general position in all markets, but I suggest that they indicate another difficulty from which we are suffering in the cotton yarn industry in our endeavour to sell not only at home but abroad.
I asked the Minister on 4th May this year if he would peg the price of our cotton, utilising for that purpose some of the trading reserves or profits which the Cotton Commission have made during its period of operation. He refused to peg those prices and utilise those resources. I now ask him, as an alternative, to agree to the removal of the 12½ per cent, spinners' surcharge for export industries. I also want to ask him a series of questions which I hope he will do his best to-answer when he replies to the Debate, because these things are extremely important to us. Is he aware of the fact, or is it a fact, that the raw cotton commission prices for Egyptian cotton are in some cases higher than the Egyptian new crop prices?
Secondly, are the reports true that the Cotton Commission have bought Sudan Sakel yarn fibre at an average of 38 pence, and are they selling it at 48 pence, that is at an increase of 10d. per lb. on each lb. that they sell in this country? Those reports appeared in the Sudanese Press, and such reports should be corrected at the earliest opportunity because they are an encouragement to the Sudanese and the Egyptian dealers to' raise the price of this important commodity still further. Thirdly, is he aware that in advancing all Egyptian prices to


the level of the Alexandria prices, the Cotton Commission have put the Egyptians in a position to dictate world prices for such fibres, and increase thereby the difficulties of the Cotton Commissions over any future purchases they wish to make.
Then I suggest that in all these matters we have to take into consideration the possibility of reducing considerably in, some cases, and in other cases we have to take into consideration the possibility of stabilising the prices of our exports. Unless the Minister can assist us at this juncture, any substantial contribution that we can make towards the national exports of this country will be jeopardised seriously. I want the Minister to bear in mind that in the Government's policy of stabilisation of prices and wages the factor of this continuously rising price of cotton not by 1d. or 2d. but by a 1s. will seriously affect the price of every commodity into which cotton enters, and those commodities number thousands and thousands and are used in this country by ordinary people. I have put my case as briefly as I can. There has been some substance in the questions I have put to the President of the Board of Trade, and I am sure he can assist us at this particular stage, for which we shall be grateful, especially if that assistance will contribute still more to our prosperity and to our national recovery for which we are all working so earnestly.

9.41 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I do not intend to stand between the hon. Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison), who has made a very able case, and the reply which he is to receive from the President of the Board of Trade, but I should like to support what he said about the spinner's surcharge. I have no intention of following into all the arguments with regard to the Liverpool Cotton Exchange which may be somewhat irrelevant to this question. I should, however, like to support him on this factor of rising prices, which has been felt already in this industry both at home and abroad. The right hon. Gentleman has made various pleas to increase exports to the dollar area. With a reasonable knowledge of the dollar area, I can tell him that in that market the most important thing of all is to maintain a steady service. Any fluctuations

caused are going to impair the orders coming from the particular area.
The general tendency of the importers there is that they like to be assured that the price will be a stable price and without constant fluctuations. I warned the President of the Board of Trade before about this, and I believe it is going to be a vital factor in the dollar market. I know from experience that the increase in price has already hit the home market, and it is endangering our prospects in the dollar market. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance that these high prices are not going to continue, and that the exporters from this country are going to be able to plan their course for some months ahead with the knowledge that there is going to be some stability in the existing market.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: There is one point I would like to add to what my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) said in opening the Debate, and that is in regard to the international aspect of this question, particularly as to the supply of raw cotton in various parts of the world and of our export trade in cotton and cotton piece goods. I am wondering to what extent the International Trade Organisation has given consideration to this matter, because it seems rather clear to me that if we are to have a stabilised price level for raw cotton we can only hope to achieve it by international agreement. Therefore, I feel that the International Trade Organisation has a special responsibility to ourselves and to other countries concerned in the production and marketing of raw cotton, which is the raw material with which we are concerned at the present time.
I am surprised to learn that there is difficulty with the export of cotton piece goods. International trade organisation has an important part to play in this respect. Why should there be difficulty in our supplying the world with cotton piece goods? There are large concentrated areas of population—particularly in India and China, for example—where many millions of people have very little clothing to wear. We need to organise the vast potential market which exists in the world for the products of our factories in Nottingham and elsewhere. I can see no adequate


method of organisation except by international action through the appropriate trade organisation. That we should be lamenting the difficulty of stabilising the price of our raw material, and the difficulty of securing markets abroad for one of our main essential industries, brings home the fact that we have not yet organised the international development of the raw material of this industry and the export of its finished goods.
A number of questions has been put to the President of the Board of Trade which he will need to answer with as much detail as he can. It would help considerably if he could touch upon the international aspect. We have been working hard through the International Trade Organisation which has recently concluded a number of its findings, particularly in regard to the tariff question and reciprocal trade agreements between the various countries. It would be useful to know to what extent the difficulties that have been voiced tonight have been dealt with in the international field. The solution to many of these problems must lie in international agreement between all the countries concerned to maintain a stable price level for both our raw materials and our finished goods.

Mr. Granville: The hon. Member referred to certain markets. Does he realise that the vital policy of the Government is to export to countries which will supply us with food and raw materials?

Mr. Sparks: I am in agreement on that point. I want to emphasise the vast potential market which exists in all parts of the world. Whilst we may have to divert our exports to the areas from which we can get food and other vital necessities, we should bear in mind the wider picture and realise that there is a vast potential market for everything we can produce. We must ask ourselves, therefore, why there should be any difficulty in exporting. It is not easy to solve the problem within a short time; taking the long view, our main hope lies in developing our policy through international trade organisation to maintain stable world prices for raw materials and finished articles.

9.49 p.m.

Mr. Champion: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) for rais-

ing this important matter. It is important also to my own constituency where there is a large lace manufacturing industry which, I fear, is likely to be gravely affected by the rise in cotton prices. It is scarcely necessary to stress here the value of that industry to our export trade. The President of the Board of Trade must consider the effect upon this industry, particularly as lace is one of those exports which we have managed to get to a very large extent into the dollar countries, something so vital to our economy. It also happens to be one of these exports which are of high value because the amount of raw material purchased from abroad which goes into the final product is so comparatively small.
Undoubtedly this price rise of raw cotton will have a bad effect. My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) has already told us how this will affect our competitive selling of lace, and particularly our competition with the great French lace exporting industries. For these reasons, I strongly support the plea of my hon. Friends that the President of the Board of Trade should give careful consideration to this recent rise in the price of the raw material and do everything in his power to secure a reduction. If he does that, he will not only help the industry in my constituency but considerably assist the country in the export drive.

9.51 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I agree with my hon. Friends that this matter is one which must cause us all very considerable concern. The effect of the rise in cotton prices, chiefly the Egyptian prices, on for instance our cotton exports, particularly exports of the finer types of cottons, on lace, which has been referred to, on hosiery and one or two other industries such as rubber tyres, has undoubtedly been serious and we are at present encountering a very strong buyers' resistance abroad to paying the prices which our industries must charge owing to the prices they must pay in their turn for the Egyptian cotton.
There are one or two things I would like to say about the way the Raw Cotton Commission operates in its price policy. The price at which raw cotton is sold to the spinners is not fixed by the Government; it is not a question of assurances on my part, but it is the Raw Cotton Commission which has the duty under the Act of selling its cotton at such prices


as seem to it best calculated to further the public interest in all respects and, so far as it is compatible with that, to sell as cheaply as possible consistent with securing that their revenues are sufficient to meet their expenditure on an average over a period of good and bad years together.
The Commission, throughout the period of their existence—it was also true of the Control—have been selling Egyptian cotton below replacement cost, and even after the recent changes in price in the last few weeks, it is still true that the selling price is substantially below the market replacement price. The Commission have so far been able to sell below cost because they have had very large stocks of cotton bought at a period when the price was considerably lower than in the last year or so. It would be most unreasonable to ask the Cotton Commission—I could, of course; I have the powers but I do not intend to use them—to incur heavy trading losses for the sake of subsidising the industries using raw cotton. That would cut both ways.
As soon as world prices fall—we must all hope that world prices will take a turn down in the near future—obviously the selling policy of the Commission must be to follow them very quickly, otherwise the Commission and I will be attacked on the ground that our export trade efforts will be made abortive by the fact that the Commission will be charging a higher price than the replacement price which other countries are paying in world markets. Unless we are prepared to have the cotton sold below the world market price we must face the point at which the Commission must follow the market upward. That is their recently announced policy and it provides the answer to one of the questions which my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham asked. The answer to his question is undoubtedly "Yes." The Commission are selling at the replacement price and not at the price when it got in before the market rose last autumn.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the Commission hedging on any of its purchases?

Mr. Wilson: I will give an answer to that question in a moment. Egyptian prices have doubled in the last few months. I will take the example of Ashmouni type 4, which is a representa-

tive grade to take as an example. It stood at is. 10¼d. last July, but it is 3s. 8¾d. today. The present replacement cost of getting the cotton into the warehouse is 3s. 10.6d. I think my hon. Friend will agree that the Commission are today selling even slightly below replacement cost. Another striking example is Karnak type 155. The price charged has increased from 2s. I¼d. to 4s. 9¼d. since last July. There again the price of supplies into the warehouse runs out at the rate of about 5s. 3.14d.
My hon. Friends are anxious to know why the price increases have occurred. There are various reasons. It is not true that bulk buying is one of them. If the Liverpool Cotton Market had been operating on the pre-war model it would have had all the difficulties which the Commission have had to face.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: And it would have earned a good many dollars.

Mr. Wilson: I do not know what the hon. and learned Member is talking about. We could not get any more dollars by the free market than by the Cotton Commission.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that if the market had been opened it would have earned a good many dollars?

Mr. Wilson: I do deny it. We debated that matter fully in the House. I do not accept that there would be any difference in the amount of dollars available to the Liverpool private cotton merchant than could have been made available—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Is the President of the Board of Trade really suggesting that if the Liverpool Market had been open there would be no earnings by way of arbitrations?

Mr. Wilson: The earnings would have been negligible. The hon. and learned Member will realise that very great troubles have been run into in getting qualified arbitrators. The biggest problem the Cotton Commission have today is to train new arbitrators.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute the estimate which the late Chancellor of the Exchequer gave of earnings equivalent to £1 million a year.

Mr. Wilson: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put a question


down, and I will go into the matter. I have not the exact statement by me made by my right hon. Friend, and I am not going to be drawn into any argument on the subject tonight.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." — [Mr. Pearson.]

Mr. Wilson: It is very arguable indeed as to what earnings might have been gained in a free market under present conditions, and possibly it might have operated in the opposite direction so that without a close control over dollar expenditure by Liverpool merchants we might have lost a great deal of dollars in a free market.
I was dealing with the reasons for the rise in price of Egyptian cotton. I said it was not due to bulk buying because in point of fact we were not in the market at the time. Much of the buying had been done at a period before the actual increase referred to. There were a number of reasons for this. One was that the exportable surplus from Egypt, in spite of the increased demands, was only two-thirds of pre-war figures. In addition there are certain new countries which have come into the Egyptian market in the course of the past few weeks. For instance, the Soviet Union have made heavy purchases of cotton in Egypt thus helping further to push up the price. Certain European countries, starved of cotton, have tried to meet their needs in Egypt and have also pushed up the price. Another reason was that the Egyptians have themselves switched over from the longer staple grades to shorter staple grades and that has accentuated the shortage.
Yet another reason is the fact that most of the Karnak supplies are held by the Egyptian Government who have been feeding supplies into the market during this period in extremely small quantities. We have not in this country, although paying these high prices, been at a disadvantage as compared with other countries which are paying the same price for Egyptian cotton as the price now being charged by our Cotton Commission. In fact they are paying slightly higher. I admit that is not true of the American cotton and certainly the point

made by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) about the difficulty this is causing in exports to our dollar markets is a very real one in so far as in the conditions we have to meet in the Canadian market we are competing with an industry which can get its cotton at a lower price.

Mr. Harrison: When the President of the Board of Trade speaks of the price we are paying as compared with other countries could he take note of this particular and supposed fact? Is he aware that Switzerland has been buying pieces of Lima Peruvian at 30d. a pound while our Commission quotes 51d. per pound. There is a difference of 21d. per pound of Egyptian type cotton which is being bought by Switzerland, and Russia has entered the market now.

Mr. Wilson: I think that one of the most helpful factors is that considerable Peruvian supplies will be arriving in this country in the course of the summer which will not only help us but ease the world pressure on cotton from Egypt. This will help to bring prices down considerably. We have had to reach agreement in Peru on the difficult problem of the method of payment.
The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) raised the question of the International Trade Organisation and asked what that might do in dealing with this problem. I need not remind him that the International Trade Organisation is not yet established. A charter is now being drawn up, but the I.T.O. is not in operation. I agree with him that it will have a most important part to play in preventing fluctuation in prices of cotton and many commodities, including foodstuffs and raw materials. We hope that the violent fluctuations we have seen recently, and the equally violent fluctuations between the two wars, will come under some measure of international control. I agree with him entirely, also, when he points to the importance of developing markets for cotton goods in undeveloped countries such as India, China and Africa. There again the International Trade Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation have an important part to play in the immediate future. As the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) said in an interjection, the problem is to push our exports to those countries from which we buy the larger part of our food and raw materials.
I entirely agree that the problems with which the cotton export industry are faced, and with which other industries are faced, are greatly accentuated by the rise in the price of Egyptian cotton. My hon. Friend mentioned the hosiery industry which has become one of our major exporting industries. Before the war exports were negligible, but recently they have increased from £2,500,000 in 1945 to more than £14,000,000 in 1947. That is a very big increase, and we have a bigger target for them this year. I agree that the industry is faced with great difficulties owing to price of yarns following the rise in the price of Egyptian cotton.
On the question of lace my hon. Friend mentioned French competition, and we have been well aware of that following the devaluation of the franc. I have been asked what are the prospects about the future of Egyptian cotton prices, because it is certainly a fact that at present some of our exporting industries are faced with a halt in buying. I think that may be only temporary. It has always been a natural reaction whenever our prices have increased for buyers overseas to stop their purchases, at least for a time, but, when they see, as they now see, our competitors, with the exception of the United States, also having to raise prices because of the increase of Egyptian cotton prices, the halt in buying may be only temporary. The position might improve in the Summer, when Peruvian supplies become available, but I cannot express anything except the concern that the Government feel at present on the subject of Egyptian cotton prices.

Mr. Granville: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Commission are not passing on the new price to the industry at the present time. The time will come when they will have to pass on the buying price to the industry, the alternative being that the Government will have to subsidise it. I realise that the right hon. Gentleman cannot give a reply tonight, but perhaps he will consider doing so in the near future.

Mr. Wilson: I think the hon. Member could not have understood what I said. Recently, for the last two months or so, it has been the policy of the Cotton Commission to charge according to replacement price. In other words, if they bought cotton at a certain price and the

price has risen in the market since that time, they base on the new price and not on the original buying price. Therefore the question does not arise. Although that is the declared policy of the Commission, they are selling a little below market price, although considerably over the price at which they bought.
I should like to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend. I cannot give him a satisfactory assurance now, but I will look into it. He raised the question of the 12½ per cent, surcharge. The diversion between the price charged to the industry for the home market and that for exports is, I believe, a very serious problem for the industry, far more serious than it is for the cotton manufacturing industry. I recently gave the industry when I met its representatives an assurance that I would go carefully into the question of this diversion between home and export prices. I think the recent action of the Hosiery Control in equalising prices of hosiery supplies will help, but, on the general question of the surcharge, there is very little I can say at the present time, apart from what I have said to the industry.
Before I close, I want to say—and I am quite sure hon. Members will support me—that we must give a quite clear warning to Egypt and other countries which, not to put too fine a point on it, are exploiting the world shortage with the prices charged at present. There will be a day of reckoning; there is bound to be, and I think that the sooner it is realised in one or two of these countries in which the price policy has gone on these lines, the better it will be.

Mr. Sparks: Could my right hon. Friend say anything about the production of raw cotton substitutes? I read the other day of a wood fibre with which experiments are being made. Has anything been done in the field of research to find substitutes?

Mr. Wilson: There is nothing better than high prices to develop the use of substitutes, and there are new fibres being produced, to one of which some publicity has been given in the last few days, by one of the major industries in this country, which is using as the raw material some waste products from groundnuts. Apart from that, we have the rayon industry, which is most important in this connection. The effect on the amount of cotton


bought and the increase in Egyptian cotton is bound to be considerable, and is bound to drive the consumer away from cotton and into rayon. The demand for cotton is not so fixed and inelastic as all that. Our rayon industry is expanding just as fast as increased capacity can come into operation. It is bound to help the cotton industry which has been using Egyptian cotton, and our production of rayon is away up above the pre-war figure. In fact, with some of the basic fibres, production is up to 74 per cent, above that of the pre-war peak year.
Now that many of the countries of the world, as a result of the European Recovery Programme, will be in a position to buy American cotton again, the pressure on Egyptian supplies will be falling away considerably. Since the new Egyptian cotton prices hit Lancashire, our Cotton Commission immediately announced its readiness, so far as practicable, to supply American cotton in place of Egyptian to all the British industries dependent on this cotton, though I know that the limits to which they can replace it are much more circumscribed in certain industries than others. I want to say, I am sure with the support of the House, the industry and consumers in all parts of the world, that, if the Egyptians think that they are assured for ever of a market for all their cotton at present prices, sooner or later they are going to have a rude awakening.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I must apologise for the fact that I was not here when the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), who raised this matter on the Adjournment, made his speech. I was unable to be present because I was taking part in the previous Debate on the Prayer. I think the hon. Member has raised a matter of extreme importance in which we must all be vitally concerned, irrespective of party. We are all very much concerned to see that the export drive, particularly in connection with textiles, is a real success.
I feel it would be inappropriate to turn this Adjournment Debate into a consideration of the merits and demerits of the Liverpool Cotton Market. I suspect I might have difficulty, Sir, in going very far along those lines, but I may in passing

—because it was mentioned by the Minister—register my astonishment at the Minister's apparent ignorance of the dollar earning capacity of the Liverpool market, and the foreign currency earnings of the Liverpool market, in the days before the war. I admit that the right hon. Gentleman did not occupy the position he now occupies at the time when this House was concerned in that matter, but even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), admitted that owing to the operation of the Liverpool cotton market—which was the only world market through which we had, say, an Indian spinner buying Egyptian cotton on the Liverpool Market—it thereby brought to this country a great deal of foreign currency earnings, which he estimated then at the equivalent of about £1 million, which would be a very substantial assistance today to our balance of payments.

Mr. Wilson: I did not admit to any ignorance about this at all, except the ignorance which is shared by the citizens of this country who, in this connection as in other connections, are faced with a complete absence of statistics relating to the period before the war. There were no reliable figures to give the exchange earnings in the period before the war. It is true that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer went so far as to commit himself to an estimate which many other people have since contested, and when he made the estimate to which the hon. and learned Member has referred, he was referring to earnings from all sources and not only dollars. What I was asked and what I could not answer—and I do not think any one could answer it—was what would have been the dollar earnings of the Liverpool Market if it had been in operation today, not in operation in 1937 or 1938 or at any other time. It is impossible to say that, and it is even more impossible to say how many of those additional dollars, if any, we could have allocated for the purchase of American cotton and the effect that would have had in enabling the cotton buyers of this country to keep out of Egypt and get into the American market. It is not a question of ignorance. Had I tried to enter into it, it would have been pure speculation and imagination.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman conducts his withdrawal with great skill. I adhere to my point that had the Liverpool Market been operating there would have been substantial dollar earnings, but that is not a point I was deliberately wishing to make, but a point to which I was drawn by the right hon. Gentleman's statement. My first point is a question of the use of the merchants in Liverpool. In that connection-I notice that the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) is sitting in a significant position in relation to the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member in the former Debates differed from the majority of the members of his party in conceding the useful service performed by the Liverpool merchants. The point I wish to make is the use that has been made of those who have grown up in this business. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is using every endeavour to see that the maximum possible use is made of these people who have had long experience. As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, these gentlemen have a substantial function to perform in connection with the purchase of American cotton. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider their position in connection with Egyptian cotton.

Mr. Wilson: I take it that the hon. and learned Member is referring to the C.I.F. agents as well as the functions of the L.C.A. merchants on arbitration. If he is referring to them, I can tell him—I am sure he knows—that of course very full use is being made of them at the present time.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: With regard to American cotton, I agree. I am suggesting that that example should be followed with regard to the Egyptian market. I am not making a party point on this.

Mr. Wilson: I quite understand.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have not tried to argue this on the merits of bulk purchase, the policy having been decided; but I say that a great deal of use could be made of the merchants formerly on the Liverpool market to the great advantage of this country. I am not in the least surprised that this Debate should be taking place, because the great reason given for the abolition of the Liverpool market was that bulk purchase was to result in the stabilisation of prices. That was the

theme song of those who, including the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, urged this as a great progressive step for the House and the country. Now we are seeing that, in fact, stabilisation does not exist, and that fluctuations are just as wide as they used to be, and, though they may not be just as frequent, are very much more violent than they used to be under the old system.
I do not expect that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on this at all, but I believe that until we get free operation of the price mechanism in regard to the supply of raw cotton we shall not have the cotton industry exporting successfully. I know that I am speaking to a closed mind on this matter, and that what I say will not have the slightest effect on those who sit at the present time on the benches opposite, but it is my firm belief that the condition precedent to the real and permanent success of the cotton trade of this country is the restoration of the free market in raw cotton and the free operation of the Liverpool cotton market; because only in those circumstances shall we be able to protect ourselves, and to insure against the fluctuations which are bound to occur in the production of a commodity which depends on nature, which depends upon insects, disease, the weather, and so on. There must be a system of insurance against variations in supply, an insurance which can be provided only by the free operation of a market such as the Liverpool market.

Mr. Tiffany: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say there is a free operation of the price mechanism in Egypt at present to cause fluctuations?

Mr. Lloyd: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have not made myself clear, but my point was that the whole value of the Liverpool market was that it was a world market, and that these various fluctuations in the various countries could be dealt with by a mechanism registering world opinion, world supply and demand. That is what we are missing, and until we get back to that quite unique barometer with regard to the supply of raw cotton, this country will suffer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-four Minutes past Ten o'Clock.